[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486412647 .anchor}Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 99-266         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Extending Wireless               | ) |                              |
| Telecommunications Services To   | * |                              |
| Tribal Lands                     | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted: June 8, 2000 Released: June 30, 2000**

**Comment Date: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register**

**Reply Comment Date: 45 days after publication in the Federal
Register**

By the Commission: Commissioner Tristani issuing a statement.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Paragraph]{.underline}

I. INTRODUCTION [1](#__RefHeading___Toc486412647)

II\. BACKGROUND 5

III\. DISCUSSION 8

A. Overview 8

B. Bidding Credits 15

1\. Overview 16

2\. Legal Authority 1[8](#legal-authority)

3\. Qualifications to Obtain Bidding Credit 22

4\. Calculation Method and Credit Amount 23

5\. Application Procedures To Obtain Bidding Credit 31

6\. Performance Requirements 34

C. Operational and Licensing Rules 39

1\. Buildout Requirements 40

2\. Modifications to Height/Power and Other Operational Requirements 42

3\. Expansion of Permissible Service Definitions 47

4\. Satellite Policies for Existing/Future Satellite Licensees 49

D. Licensing of New Services/Spectrum 55

1\. Unallocated or Unlicensed Spectrum 55

2\. Licensing in Spectrum Bands Allocated to Other Services and
Extensions into Adjacent Licensing Areas 58

3\. Drawing Geographic Boundaries 62

IV\. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 64

A. Bidding Credits for Non-Tribal Areas 65

B. Transferable Bidding Credits for Existing Licensees that Commence
Service in Tribal Areas 67

C. Transferable Bidding Credits for Licensees that Partition Tribal
Areas 71

V. Procedural Matters 72

A*.* *Ex Parte* Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 72

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 73

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 74

D. Comment Dates 75

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 79

APPENDIX A: List Of Parties

APPENDIX B: Rules

APPENDIX C: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

APPENDIX D: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1.  **I. INTRODUCTION**

2.  In this *Report and Order*, we adopt rules and policies that provide
    incentives for wireless telecommunications carriers to serve
    individuals living on tribal lands.[^1] Pursuant to our authority
    under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    (Act),[^2] we will award bidding credits in future auctions to
    winning bidders who use licenses to deploy facilities and provide
    service to federally- recognized tribal areas that are either
    unserved by any telecommunications carrier or that have a telephone
    service penetration rate below 70 percent.[^3]

3.  In addition to implementing bidding credits as described above, we
    also seek comment below in a *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*
    on other possible uses of bidding credits to encourage deployment of
    wireless services to tribal communities. Specifically, we seek
    comment on whether to: (1) award bidding credits to entities that
    commit to serve non-tribal areas and/or tribal areas with
    penetration levels above 70 percent, but significantly below the
    national penetration average; (2) expand the bidding credit program
    by awarding credits for use in future auctions to licensees in
    already-established wireless services who deploy facilities to
    unserved tribal communities; and (3) make credits available to
    licensees that enter into partitioning agreements with tribal
    authorities that allow the tribal government to provide service,
    either directly or through negotiation with a third-party carrier.

4.  The *Report and Order* also addresses issues raised in the *Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Notice*) in this proceeding concerning
    possible changes to technical and operational rules to promote
    deployment of wireless services on tribal lands.[^4] Although we
    generally conclude that our technical and operational rules do not
    require across-the-board changes to further these initiatives, we
    remain committed to working with tribal authorities and associated
    carriers in instances where waivers or other relief from regulatory
    requirements will assist their efforts.

5.  In a companion order adopted today in the *Universal Service*
    docket, we have established universal service low income support
    mechanisms to increase the availability of all telecommunications
    services, both wireline and wireless, in tribal areas.[^5] We regard
    the actions taken in these two proceedings as complementary, and
    anticipate that the combination of regulatory incentives and low
    income support mechanisms will significantly speed the deployment of
    service to tribal communities. In addition, we have adopted a policy
    statement establishing a government-to-government relationship with
    Indian tribes that should supplement the initiatives taken in these
    two proceedings.[^6]

# II. BACKGROUND {#ii.-background .unnumbered}

6.  The Commission released the *Notice* in this proceeding on August
    18, 1999. Recognizing the unusually low telephone service
    penetration rates on tribal lands, we sought comment on the
    potential of various wireless technologies to provide service to
    unserved tribal lands and those with low penetration rates. We noted
    that many tribal lands, particularly in the western United States,
    are geographically isolated, and that obtaining the lowest cost for
    providing basic telephone service to such areas may require use of a
    terrestrial wireless technology, a satellite technology, or a
    combination thereof.[^7]

7.  The *Notice* sought comment on a number of potential regulatory
    initiatives to encourage existing wireless carriers to serve tribal
    lands, and the licensing of new terrestrial wireless and satellite
    entrants to provide service to tribal lands. These included: (1)
    relaxing antenna height and transmitter power limitations to
    facilitate system deployment in tribal lands; (2) establishing
    flexible buildout requirements for carriers providing service to
    tribal lands; (3) permitting licensees to expand coverage into
    adjacent licensing areas in order to provide full coverage to tribal
    communities; (4) allowing licensees in certain private (non-CMRS)
    services to provide commercial service to tribal lands; (5) lifting
    restrictions on transfer of wireless licenses awarded to designated
    entities (DEs) for carriers providing service to tribal lands;
    and (6) modifying regulations to promote the deployment of satellite
    technology to tribal lands. In general, we proposed that any grant
    of additional flexibility to carriers along these lines should be
    conditioned on the carrier having entered into a binding agreement
    with the relevant tribal authority to provide service.[^8]

8.  In addition, the *Notice* sought comment on the potential for
    licensing new terrestrial wireless and satellite entrants to provide
    service to tribal lands. Specifically, we sought comment on: (1)
    using unallocated or unlicensed spectrum bands to serve the needs of
    individuals living on tribal lands; (2) licensing in spectrum bands
    allocated to other services; (3) drawing geographic boundaries for
    spectrum licenses that recognize the service needs of individuals
    living on tribal lands; (4) adopting technical/operational rules for
    new services; (5) using auction bidding credits as an incentive to
    serve tribal lands; and (6) adopting satellite licensing policies
    that could increase access to the telecommunications services on
    tribal lands.[^9] We also sought comment on applying the proposals
    enumerated above to non-tribal areas with low telephone penetration
    rates.[^10] In response to the *Notice*, the Commission received 45
    comments, 19 reply comments and a number of *ex parte*
    submissions.[^11]

# III. DISCUSSION {#iii.-discussion .unnumbered}

## Overview

9.  The record in this proceeding demonstrates that there is a
    substantial need for specific incentives targeted to the deployment
    of service on tribal lands. By virtually any measure, communities on
    tribal lands have historically had less access to telecommunications
    services than any other segment of the population. According to the
    1990 Census, 23 of the 48 largest tribal reservations (those with
    500 or more households) had telephone penetration rates below 60
    percent,[^12] and 16 of these reservations had penetration rates
    below 50 percent.[^13] Penetration rates at several of the largest
    reservations are lower still: 18.4 percent on the Navajo Reservation
    and Trust Lands in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah and 22.2 percent on
    the Gila River Reservation in Arizona.[^14] Many smaller
    reservations also experience low telephone penetration rates.
    According to the 1990 Census, the Alamo Navajo Reservation, with 256
    households, had a penetration rate of 33.6 percent, while the Torres
    Martinez Reservation, with 51 households, had a 49 percent rate. By
    contrast, the average telephone penetration rate for the nation as a
    whole is 94 percent.[^15] Moreover, tribal communities have less
    access to communications services than low-income communities
    generally: in 1998, the poorest U.S. households (those with incomes
    below \$5,000) had a penetration rate of 78.7 percent in 1998,[^16]
    while the 48 largest reservations, including households at all
    income levels, had a 46.6 percent penetration rate.[^17]

10. Telephone service is a necessity in today's world. The lack of basic
    telecommunications services puts affected tribal communities at a
    tremendous social and economic disadvantage. Individuals with
    serious health problems are subject to significant medical risks if
    they lack ready access to telephone service. Individuals seeking
    jobs cannot provide prospective employers telephone numbers through
    which they can be reached, nor can they make follow-up calls quickly
    and easily. Parents at home without a phone cannot be contacted by
    schools in emergencies. In addition, communities without telephone
    service often lack access to the Internet, which is fast becoming
    one of the most important tools not only for communication, but also
    to obtain invaluable educational, medical, political, and financial
    information.

11. Various factors contribute to the low penetration rates on tribal
    lands. Chief among these factors are geographic remoteness, sparse
    population clusters, low income levels and high unemployment
    rates.[^18] Moreover, tribal governments often lack the economic
    resources of the states to subsidize the provision of telephone
    service to economically disadvantaged areas with revenues derived
    from more affluent communities and business centers. Because access
    to basic telecommunications is essential to effective participation
    in today's rapidly changing economy, we have a duty to do all that
    we can to ensure that access to services on tribal lands is
    increased well beyond current levels.

12. Because many tribal lands, particularly those in the western United
    States, are geographically isolated, obtaining the lowest cost for
    providing basic telephone service may involve the use of a
    terrestrial wireless technology, a satellite technology, or a
    combination of these technologies. Terrestrial wireless technology
    includes both mobile services, such as cellular and Personal
    Communication Service (PCS), and fixed "wireless local loop"
    services (WLL). A hybrid terrestrial/satellite wireless model would
    involve a satellite providing the communications link between an
    isolated community and the nation's public switched telephone
    network for long distance telephony, with a terrestrial wireless
    loop used to link the individual residents and businesses in a
    particular community for local telephony. Alternatively, satellites
    can be used alone for long distance and local telephony through the
    use of handheld phones that can communicate directly with the
    satellites.

13. Western Wireless has submitted data to the Commission suggesting
    that the forward-looking long-run cost of cellular service is less
    than the comparable cost for wireline technology for a number of
    wire centers, including those in rural areas of Montana and North
    Dakota.[^19] Terrestrial wireless technology also has the potential
    to extend service to remote tribal lands through fixed wireless
    systems that provide WLL. Fixed wireless operators state that their
    networks have a significantly lower cost structure than wireline
    systems for two primary reasons. First, aside from the expenses
    associated with tower siting, wireless networks are free of many of
    the installation and maintenance costs associated with extending
    wireline networks to widely dispersed populations over long
    distances.[^20] Second, unlike a wireline network in which an entire
    market must be wired before initiating service, the capital
    expenditures of a wireless network can be incrementally incurred as
    more customers are added. Thus, WLL could offer cost savings for the
    provision of services to tribal lands.

14. Satellite technology also represents a potentially cost-effective
    means to serve communities with low penetration rates, especially
    those in remote areas. For example, satellites may offer cost
    advantages over wireline access in rural and remote areas, where
    sparsely populated areas cannot provide the economies of scale to
    justify the deployment costs of wireline networks.[^21] Satellites
    have large coverage areas and, in many cases, can reach an entire
    nation, thereby spreading the costs of deployment across a number of
    communities. Satellites also provide communications opportunities
    for communities in geographically isolated areas, such as
    mountainous regions and deep valleys, where rugged and impassable
    terrain may make service via terrestrial wireless or wireline
    telephony economically impractical. Satellites can offer a variety
    of telecommunications services, from basic low-bandwidth services
    such as data messaging services and basic telephone service to more
    advanced, higher bandwidth services, such as voice dispatch, video,
    and high speed Internet access.[^22]

15. In this proceeding, we adopt initiatives to promote the deployment
    of wireless telecommunications services to tribal lands with little
    or no access to telecommunications services. We recognize that there
    are also non-tribal areas that have significant needs for
    telecommunications service. However, we believe our initial focus
    should be on incentives that target development to tribal lands
    because these are the areas where the documented lack of service is
    most severe. As we gain experience with the initiatives we adopt
    here, we may consider extending their use to other areas as well.

## Bidding Credits

16. In the *Notice*, we tentatively determined that bidding credits
    could be used as an incentive for auction winners to deploy wireless
    services to tribal lands and other unserved areas.[^23] We sought
    comment on the possibility of awarding bidding credits to any entity
    indicating that it would provide service to tribal lands and other
    unserved areas located in markets where it is the winning bidder,
    and the appropriate credit amount. We also sought comment on whether
    we should tie bidding credits for service to tribal lands or other
    unserved areas to a binding commitment by the winning bidder to (1)
    spend the credit amount on infrastructure, and (2) ensure that
    service is provided. Further, we asked whether a bidding credit
    conditioned on future investment in a tribal land or unserved area
    should be applied for and awarded at the long form stage, and
    whether winning bidders should be required to submit proof of a
    tribal agreement and/or proof of financial and technical
    arrangements as a condition for obtaining the credit. Finally, we
    sought comment on what measures would be necessary to ensure that a
    licensee has met the conditions that attach to the bidding credit
    and what consequences should ensue if a licensee fails to satisfy
    the required conditions.[^24]

### Overview

17. We conclude that properly targeted bidding credits will encourage
    participation in auctions by carriers who are in a position to
    provide service to tribal lands, and will help to mitigate the
    economic risk associated with this type of service. Most parties
    commenting on the issue support the view that bidding credits could
    provide a significant incentive to deploy wireless services to
    tribal lands.[^25] Although Motorola argues that bidding credits
    will not be sufficient to compensate carriers for the underlying
    economic difficulties of serving, high-cost, low-income areas,[^26]
    we find that they can be an important tool in achieving our goal,
    particularly when combined with other measures, including those
    being adopted in the *Universal Service* docket. Therefore, we find
    that establishing bidding credits for carriers, regardless of size,
    who agree to extend coverage to tribal areas is in the public
    interest.

18. We also reject RTG's argument that bidding credits will result in
    abuse by auction participants and will require significant
    regulatory oversight.[^27] The specific compliance measures we adopt
    in this proceeding, which are discussed in detail below, should
    minimize abuse. Moreover, as discussed below, a key element of our
    bidding credit mechanism is that to obtain the credit, a carrier
    must file a certification, executed by a federally-recognized tribal
    government,[^28] that the tribal government will allow the carrier
    to deploy wireless facilities in the tribal territory. We believe
    that the tribal governments are uniquely situated to monitor the
    deployment of service on their lands and ensure that carriers who
    obtain credits meet the requirements of the program. Although the
    Communications Act vests the Commission with exclusive jurisdiction
    over the management of spectrum (except spectrum allocated to the
    Federal government) and the licensing of wireless carriers, Indian
    tribes retain important sovereign powers over their territory under
    the plenary power vested in Congress by the U.S. Constitution.[^29]
    We have structured our rules to enable the tribes to be active
    participants in the bidding credit program because they are in the
    best position to negotiate terms and conditions with the carriers
    and to ensure that carriers will meet their commitments to deliver
    service to the tribal areas with the greatest need.

### Legal Authority

19. As explained below, we find that the objectives and requirements of
    Section 309(j) of the Act,[^30] which the Commission must consider
    in designing competitive bidding systems, authorize the Commission
    to grant bidding credits targeted specifically to entities that
    commit to bringing much needed wireless telecommunications services
    to tribal lands.[^31] Section 309(j)(3) directs the Commission to
    design bidding systems that promote the objectives of Section 1 of
    the Act, which requires the Commission to ensure the rapid and
    efficient deployment of wire and radio communications "to all the
    people of the United States."[^32] The bidding credits that we adopt
    herein further this essential purpose of the Act by promoting the
    deployment of service on tribal lands, which have some of the lowest
    U.S. telephone service penetration rates. In addition, by fostering
    the provision of service to such areas, which are often rural, the
    bidding credits further the objective of Section 309(j)(3)(A) to
    ensure "the development and rapid deployment of new technologies,
    products, and services for the benefit of the public, including
    those residing in rural areas . . . ."[^33] We also further the
    objective of Section 309(j)(3)(D) of promoting "efficient and
    intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum,"[^34] because such
    bidding credits will encourage carriers to provide service on
    clearly underutilized spectrum on tribal lands. We find that the
    congressional objectives, noted above, will be served by the
    Commission awarding bidding credits designed to ensure that
    individuals residing on tribal lands are afforded access to wireless
    services. This is especially so in light of the substantial number
    of individuals residing on tribal lands that lack access to even
    basic communications services, let alone more advanced services such
    as PCS.

20. Section 309(j)(4) directs the Commission to prescribe regulations to
    further the objectives enumerated in Section 309(j)(3). Congress
    intended that Section 309(j)(4) would provide the Commission
    "flexibility to utilize any combination of techniques that would
    serve the public interest."[^35] We find that targeted bidding
    credits will serve the public interest because they will encourage
    participation in auctions by those businesses, both tribal and
    non-tribal, that are most likely to be interested in and capable of
    serving tribal lands. We note that Section 309(j)(4)(D) provides
    that the Commission may award bidding preferences to ensure that
    small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by
    members of minority groups and women participate in spectrum
    auctions. There is no indication in Section 309(j)(4)(D) or in its
    legislative history, however, that the Commission's authority to
    award bidding preferences is limited to such entities. To the
    contrary, Section 309(j)(4) provides examples of the mechanisms that
    the Commission may employ in serving the key objectives enumerated
    in Section 309(j)(3).

21. Further, we find that our mandate set forth in Section 706(A) of the
    Act, to "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis
    of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans . . . by
    utilizing . . . regulating methods that remove barriers to
    infrastructure investment,"[^36] will be served by bidding credits
    designed to remove or reduce economic barriers to infrastructure
    investment on tribal lands. Our finding is confirmed by the
    legislative history of this provision, which provides that this
    mandate may be met by "provid\[ing\] the proper incentives for
    infrastructure investment."[^37]

22. Finally, we note that Section 309(j)(4)(B) of the Act directs the
    Commission to "include performance requirements, such as appropriate
    deadlines and penalties for performance failures, to ensure prompt
    delivery of service to rural areas . . . and to promote investment
    in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services,"[^38] and
    provides the Commission authority to condition the bidding credits
    on certain performance requirements that we adopt below.

### Qualifications to Obtain Bidding Credit

23. This bidding credit is available to any winning bidder in a future
    auction that commits to deploy facilities to serve qualifying tribal
    lands. We define "qualifying tribal land" as a federally- recognized
    tribal area that has a telephone penetration rate equal to or less
    than 70 percent, which is equivalent to 75 percent of the average
    nationwide telephone penetration rate (94 percent). We agree with
    NTCA that limiting the bidding credit in this manner will ensure
    that credits are targeted to those tribal communities with the
    greatest need for access to telecommunications service.[^39]
    Further, we conclude that targeting the initiatives adopted herein
    to these communities is most consistent with the public interest. We
    recognize that there are non-tribal areas with penetration rates
    below the national average. However, penetration rates for most
    non-tribal lands are significantly higher than those for most tribal
    lands, and virtually all non-tribal areas have a telephone
    penetration rate of 70 percent or higher.[^40] Therefore, we
    conclude that it is appropriate to limit our bidding credit program
    at this time to qualifying tribal lands. We seek comment, however,
    in the *Further Notice* on the possibility of expanding bidding
    credits to cover both tribal and non-tribal areas with higher
    penetration rates.[^41]

### Calculation Method and Credit Amount

24. Commenters differ on the appropriate method for calculating the
    bidding credit.\
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) supports tying the credit
    amount to the applicant's size and commitment to providing
    service.[^42] Salt River Pima-Maricopa (Salt River) supports basing
    the credit amount on the pro-rata share of the unserved population
    as compared to the population of the entire service area and,
    further, tying it to infrastructure investment.[^43] Other
    commenters, however, oppose tying bidding credits to infrastructure
    investment. RTG argues this approach would not significantly alter
    the economic realities of providing service to tribal areas.[^44]
    Motorola contends that it would result in the deployment of service
    only to heavily populated tribal lands.[^45] Titan Wireless avers it
    would constrain the use of funds and instead recommends that the
    bidding credit be a discount equal to the highest credit available
    to designated entities in the relevant auction.[^46]

25. We agree with commenters that the bidding credit amount should be
    tied to the level of infrastructure investment in qualifying tribal
    lands.[^47] Tying the credit to infrastructure investment provides a
    correlation between the financial commitment made by the carrier to
    the deployment of facilities and the financial benefit derived in
    the auction. We also conclude that the approximate coverage area of
    a transmitter and size of the tribal area should be considered in
    determining the credit amount, because the cost of deploying
    wireless infrastructure is tied to the amount of area covered by the
    system.

26. Accordingly, based on the foregoing factors, we adopt the following
    methodology for calculating the credit amount. A winning bidder may
    receive a \$300,000 credit for up to the first 200 square miles (518
    square kilometers) of qualifying tribal land within its license
    area. In instances where qualifying tribal lands within a license
    area exceed 200 square miles (518 kilometers), a winning bidder may
    receive an additional \$1500 per square mile (2.59 square
    kilometer), or \$300,000 for each additional 200 square miles (518
    square kilometers).[^48] All credits will be subject to a maximum
    limit based on the gross bid amount for the license for which the
    credit is sought. Where the gross bid amount is \$1 million or less,
    the cap will be 50 percent of the gross bid. Where the gross bid
    amount is greater than \$1 million and equal to or less than \$2
    million, the cap will be \$500,000. Finally, where the gross bid
    amount exceeds \$2 million, the cap will be 25 percent of the gross
    bid.[^49]

27. The \$300,000 figure represents our rough estimate of the
    approximate infrastructure costs (including site acquisition, tower
    construction, and equipment costs) for a representative tower
    facility.[^50] We recognize that there may be instances where such
    costs are more or less than \$300,000, particularly due to
    differences in tower height, topography and the wireless technology
    employed. We find, however, that for purposes of administrative
    simplicity, a single cost figure representing the approximate cost
    of a tower facility should be used as a proxy for infrastructure
    costs, and conclude that \$300,000 is a reasonable estimate. The 200
    square miles figure represents a rough estimate of the coverage area
    of a representative tower facility in a flat, rural area. We
    conclude that a tower facility operating at permissible power levels
    under our rules[^51] could cover 200 or more square miles in a
    relatively flat, sparsely populated area. We recognize that the
    coverage could vary significantly depending on antenna height,
    population density and topography. Nonetheless, we find that 200
    square miles (518 square kilometers) is a reasonable estimate of a
    tower's coverage area in a sparsely populated, relatively flat rural
    area.

28. We acknowledge that our bidding credit formula is inexact, and that
    carriers' actual infrastructure costs may be higher or lower than
    the credit amount. We find, however, that a more precise formula
    that attempts to calculate infrastructure costs and coverage on a
    case-by-case basis would prove overly burdensome to the Commission
    and carriers alike. Our formula represents a simple, objective, and
    reliable method of calculating the credit. It allows carriers to
    recoup a significant portion of their infrastructure costs for
    serving tribal areas, prevents windfalls, and ensures administrative
    simplicity. Further, we believe the credit provides a financial
    incentive for carriers to deploy wireless facilities more
    efficiently. We reject Salt River's proposal to base the credit on
    population coverage because, in most cases, the tribal population in
    comparison to the total population of the license area is very
    small. Thus a credit amount based on the pro-rata share of the
    unserved population compared to the total service area would be
    negligible, which would minimize the incentive to serve tribal
    areas.

29. In addition, we find that imposing a maximum limit on the credits a
    winning bidder may receive will ensure that bidding credits under
    this program will not rise to a level that causes distortion of the
    market mechanisms on which licensing by auction is based. The caps
    we impose are based on the gross amount of the license for which the
    credit is sought. For license areas where the gross bid amount
    exceeds \$2 million, we impose a 25 percent cap, which will permit
    bidders to recover a substantial portion of their infrastructure
    costs, and provide a considerable incentive to serve tribal lands.
    We impose a higher cap, 50 percent, for license areas where the
    gross bid amount is \$1 million or less. We are concerned that a 25
    percent cap, in these instances, would significantly limit the
    infrastructure costs a winning bidder could recover, thus reducing
    the incentive to serve tribal areas in lesser-value markets. We find
    that a 50 percent cap would allow for a meaningful recovery of
    infrastructure costs, while precluding a level of recovery that
    would exceed or approximate the value of the license. For license
    areas where the gross bid is greater than \$1 million and equal to
    or less than \$2 million, we impose a cap of \$500,000, which in
    effect produces a sliding percentage cap from 50 percent to 25
    percent.

30. Pursuant to Section 1.925 of our rules, we will entertain waiver
    requests for a higher credit where an applicant demonstrates that
    its infrastructure costs exceed the available credit under the
    formula.[^52] Such waiver requests, however, will be subject to the
    percentage cap on credits described above, and we will not grant
    waivers in excess of the applicable cap. Applicants seeking such
    relief must also make a detailed showing of their projected
    infrastructure costs, including a certification by an independent
    auditor that the estimated costs are reasonable. Pending the
    disposition of the waiver request, we will not grant a license for
    any market for which a waiver is sought. Moreover, applicants
    granted the requested relief must comply with additional
    certification requirements, as set forth in Section III.B.6.

31. Applicants who qualify for the tribal lands bidding credit may
    obtain this credit in addition to any other generally available
    bidding credit for which they are eligible. For example, small
    business applicants who also qualify for the tribal lands bidding
    credit may receive both a small business bidding credit and a tribal
    lands bidding credit for a particular market. Thus, in some
    instances, the cumulative bidding credit available to a small
    business winning bidder in a particular market may exceed 50
    percent.

### Application Procedures To Obtain Bidding Credit

32. Tribal land bidding credits will be awarded in accordance with the
    following procedures. First, a winning bidder that wishes to obtain
    the credit in a particular market must indicate on its long form
    application (Form 601) that it intends to serve qualifying tribal
    lands in that market. We will not allow bidders to provide such
    notice of intent at the short-form stage, because tribal authorities
    likely will be reluctant to negotiate with carriers until the
    winning bidder for the market is identified.[^53] The bidding credit
    will not affect the amount of the applicant's down payment, which
    will continue to be based on the net high bid amount (gross bid less
    any small business bidding credit). After the down payment is made,
    the tribal land bidding credit will be subtracted from the net high
    bid amount to calculate a final net bid amount.

33. Following the long form filing date, the applicant will have 90
    calendar days to amend its long-form application and provide
    certification from the tribal government(s) that: (1) it will allow
    the bidder to site facilities and provide service on its tribal
    land(s), in accordance with our rules; (2) it has not and will not
    enter into an exclusive contract with the applicant precluding entry
    by other carriers, and will not unreasonably discriminate against
    any carrier; and (3) its tribal land is a qualifying tribal land as
    defined in our rules, i.e., areas that have a telephone penetration
    rate at or below 70 percent. This certification requirement does not
    preclude tribal governments from negotiating additional reasonable
    terms and conditions with carriers, but rather establishes a
    commitment by the tribal government to allow multiple entry and to
    ensure that carriers meet their commitments to deliver service to
    the tribal area. In addition, at the conclusion of the 90-day
    period, the applicant must amend its long-form application to file a
    certification that it will comply with the bidding credit buildout
    requirements described in Section III.B.6, and that it will consult
    with the tribal government regarding the siting of facilities and
    deployment of service on the tribal land.

34. Upon Commission receipt of these certifications, the bidding credit
    will be awarded and the applicant will make payment of the final net
    adjusted bid amount. The final net adjusted bid amount will be
    calculated as follows: (1) For applicants who are not entitled to
    small business bidding credits, the final net adjusted bid amount
    will be the gross high bid, less the tribal land bidding credit; (2)
    For applicants who are entitled to a small business bidding credit,
    the final net adjusted bid amount will be the net high bid (i.e. the
    gross high bid less the small business bidding credit) less the
    tribal land bidding credit.[^54] If the required certifications are
    not provided at the conclusion of the 90-day period, the bidding
    credit will be cancelled and the applicant will be required to pay
    the balance on the original gross bid amount (or net high bid
    amount) to obtain the license.

### Performance Requirements 

35. Only a few entities commented on measures we should take to ensure
    that applicants awarded bidding credits actually deploy facilities
    and provide service to tribal lands. Salt River suggests that we (1)
    require service terms and conditions to be included in the agreement
    between the tribal government and the applicant, and (2) condition
    the license on the bidder complying with the terms and conditions in
    the agreement. Licensees that fail to comply with the terms of the
    agreement, Salt River argues, should forfeit the credit pursuant to
    our unjust enrichment rules, and the portion of the license area
    covering the tribal lands should be involuntarily partitioned to the
    tribal government.[^55] Titan Wireless suggests that imposing a
    buildout schedule is the best way to ensure deployment of service to
    tribal lands, and recommends that we use the same mechanism and
    criteria we employ in determining whether a DE has provided
    sufficient service in the case of DE-to-non-DE license
    transfers.[^56]

36. We agree with commenters that performance requirements are necessary
    to ensure that carriers satisfy the conditions attached to the
    bidding credit. We also note that Section 309(j)(4)(B) of the Act
    directs the Commission to "include performance requirements, such as
    appropriate deadlines and penalties for performance failures, to
    ensure prompt delivery of service to rural areas . . . and to
    promote investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and
    services."[^57] Therefore, we will condition award of the credit on
    the licensee constructing and operating its system to cover 75
    percent of the population[^58] of the qualifying tribal land within
    three years of the grant of the license.[^59] We recognize that this
    buildout requirement is more stringent than those imposed under out
    current rules. However, the requirement is imposed only on carriers
    that choose to obtain the bidding credit. We find that the public
    interest will be served by this accelerated buildout requirement for
    tribal lands, because it ensures that: (1) only entities making a
    serious commitment to serving tribal lands will receive bidding
    credits; and (2) telecommunications services will be rapidly
    deployed to unserved tribal areas. Moreover, buildout of tribal
    areas to meet the credit requirements may also be counted towards
    compliance with construction or coverage requirements generally
    applicable to the license for which the credit is received.

37. We recognize that requiring buildout on qualifying tribal lands as a
    condition of the bidding credit does not guarantee that individuals
    in those areas will actually use the service that is offered. Thus,
    award of the credit alone may not immediately result in increased
    telephone penetration. Nevertheless, we believe that the bidding
    credits we adopt here, coupled with the Lifeline Assistance and
    Lifeline Connection Assistance measures we adopt in the companion
    *Universal Service* Order, should prove a powerful tool for
    increasing penetration levels in the neediest tribal areas.

38. In order to verify compliance with the tribal buildout requirement,
    we will require licensees to file a notification of construction
    (FCC Form 601, Schedule K) at the conclusion of the three-year
    buildout period that they have met the 75 percent buildout
    requirement on the tribal lands for which the credit was
    awarded.[^60] If the licensee fails to comply with these conditions,
    it will be required to repay the bidding credit plus interest[^61]
    thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the buildout period.
    Failure to repay this amount will result in automatic cancellation
    of the licensee's license. Licensees granted a higher credit
    pursuant to a waiver must also file a certification that the credit
    amount was spent on infrastructure to provide wireless coverage to
    qualifying tribal lands. This certification should include a final
    report prepared by an independent auditor retained by the
    licensee,[^62] verifying that the infrastructure costs are
    reasonable to comply with our buildout requirements.[^63] If the
    credit amount obtained by waiver exceeds the infrastructure costs of
    providing service to a qualifying tribal land, the licensee must pay
    the difference between the credit amount and the infrastructure
    costs.

39. We do not agree with Salt River that a licensee who fails to meet
    its buildout obligations should also be required to involuntarily
    partition the portion of their license area covering the qualifying
    tribal lands to the tribal authority. We find that the penalties we
    impose for failure to comply with our performance requirements are
    adequate to ensure that carriers satisfy our conditions. Further, as
    discussed more fully in Section III.D.3, *infra*, we do not favor
    creating licensing areas comprised solely of tribal areas.

## Operational and Licensing Rules

40. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on amending certain operational
    and licensing rules to encourage extension of service to tribal
    lands. Specifically, we sought comment on: (1) establishing flexible
    buildout requirements for carriers serving tribal lands; (2)
    relaxing antenna height, transmitter power limitations, and other
    operational rules for carriers serving tribal lands; (3) allowing
    licensees in certain private (non-CMRS) services to provide basic
    telephone service to tribal lands; and (4) waiving regulations to
    promote the deployment of satellite technology to tribal lands.
    [^64] As discussed below, we generally conclude that
    across-the-board changes to these rules are unnecessary to further
    the goals of this proceeding. Instead, we believe that parties
    should seek waivers of specific rules or file other requests for
    regulatory relief in instances where greater flexibility than the
    rules allow would facilitate the provision of service to tribal
    lands. We strongly encourage parties to file such requests where
    needed, and delegate authority to the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau and the International Bureau to consider these waivers as
    they apply to terrestrial wireless and satellite-based services,
    respectively. Parties seeking a waiver are encouraged to provide
    evidence of an agreement with tribal authorities that includes a
    commitment to serve the tribal lands.

### Buildout Requirements

41. [Background.]{.underline} The Commission has developed a variety of
    rules in wireless services that govern the obligation of licensees
    to construct and operate their facilities to serve an area. These
    buildout rules reflect several approaches that match a type of
    license to a specific buildout requirement.[^65] In certain services
    (e.g., broadband PCS), carriers must meet specific population
    coverage requirements. In other services (e.g., LMDS), licensees
    have the alternative of meeting such coverage requirements or
    providing "substantial service," which gives licensees an added
    degree of flexibility in determining the most efficient use of their
    spectrum. Because most carriers meet these buildout requirements by
    initially building out urban and suburban markets, rather than more
    sparsely populated areas, we sought comment in the *Notice* on
    whether to relax buildout requirements for licensees who focus their
    early buildout efforts on tribal lands and other unserved
    areas.[^66]

42. [Discussion.]{.underline} The Commission's buildout requirements
    generally provide licensees with flexibility to determine the nature
    and scope of their system deployment and do not require licensees to
    provide coverage to tribal areas. Some commenters contend that
    relaxing buildout requirements will create an incentive for
    licensees to focus their early buildout efforts on tribal
    lands.[^67] We are not persuaded, however, that across-the-board
    relaxation of our buildout requirements would be an effective means
    of promoting such service. The record suggests that in most
    instances, the lack of service to tribal lands results from
    technical obstacles, economic factors, or other problems, not from
    overly restrictive buildout requirements. In addition, tribal lands
    vary significantly from one another in terms of population density,
    terrain, and other factors that can affect the feasibility of
    building out facilities in those areas. However, we are willing to
    consider relaxing our buildout requirements in cases where parties
    can demonstrate that doing so will expedite deployment of service to
    tribal lands. We therefore encourage parties to file specific waiver
    requests if need be, and commit to consider such requests
    expeditiously.

### Modifications to Height/Power and Other Operational Requirements

43. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Notice*, we stated that
    transmitting power limits and other factors affect the maximum
    distance from a transmitting antenna that communications may be
    reliably transmitted, and also the potential for interference with
    other systems.[^68] We further noted that for tribal areas that are
    located in remote or sparsely populated areas, increasing these
    limits may increase the viability of providing basic services by
    expanding the reach of existing systems and by reducing the number
    of transmitting facilities required to provide service in a certain
    area. We sought comment on possible modifications to our
    height/power limits for wireless services generally, and
    specifically for Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS) in
    the Rural Radiotelephone Service,[^69] because these systems serve
    rural areas.[^70] Alternatively, we asked parties to comment on
    whether to exempt BETRS from height/power limits where it is used to
    serve tribal lands or other unserved areas.[^71] In addition, we
    sought comment on whether height/power modifications would encourage
    service to tribal lands and other unserved areas by providers of
    services, such as PCS, LMDS, MDS, WCS, 39 GHz services, and 24 GHz
    services.[^72]

44. [Discussion.]{.underline} We find that, in view of the many and
    varied technical circumstances that may impede service to tribal
    lands, the public interest would best be served through the
    judicious use of waivers of our rules governing factors such as
    antenna height and power limits, as well as other operational rules.
    We generally agree with commenters that there are instances where
    the potential for service to tribal lands could be improved if we
    modified antenna height and power restrictions for wireless
    providers serving these areas,[^73] provided safeguards are retained
    to protect against interference to neighboring systems.[^74]
    However, we believe that such modifications are best implemented on
    a case-by-case basis rather than through sweeping rule changes.
    Tribal lands vary in size and some may be too small to accommodate
    relaxation of antenna height and power rules without increasing the
    likelihood of interference to neighboring systems. Even in larger
    tribal lands, propagation characteristics vary depending on the
    terrain, so that system planning and tower siting must be carefully
    tailored to local conditions to prevent interference.[^75] Moreover,
    increasing the base-to-mobile range of wireless base stations
    through height and power increases does not necessarily facilitate
    the provision of service, because this may require a corresponding
    increase in power (and therefore the cost) of mobile units to
    achieve the same mobile-to-base signal range.[^76]

45. In sum, we believe that these issues are best handled on a
    case-by-case basis through consideration of individual waiver
    requests. Parties seeking such waivers should provide evidence of an
    agreement with tribal authorities that includes a commitment to
    serve the tribal lands. In addition, parties must demonstrate that
    granting the request will not cause harmful interference to any
    existing licensee, to previously authorized but not yet operating
    systems, or to neighboring countries. We also agree with the
    Satellite Industry Association that, in considering modifications of
    height and power rules, the Commission should consider the potential
    for preclusive impact on future satellite services, as well as the
    impact on current or planned satellite services.[^77]

46. With respect to BETRS, some commenters assert that the Commission's
    rules preclude the construction and operation of new BETRS stations
    in tribal areas, and propose that the Commission reevaluate its
    decision to decline to adopt rules that would have permitted
    site-by-site licensing of BETRS on a co-primary basis with
    geographic area paging licenses.[^78] Although we have made
    site-based licensing of BETRS secondary to geographic licensing of
    paging on channels shared by the two services, [^79]we disagree that
    this precludes BETRS licensees from providing service in tribal
    areas, and see no need to revisit our rules in this respect. This
    does not preclude us, however, from considering waiver requests by
    BETRS licensees with specific proposals to deploy service to tribal
    lands, or granting such waivers if circumstances warrant.[^80]

47. Other commenters have proposed to make tribal lands a "testing
    ground" for the implementation of broadband architectures that would
    utilize a combination of licensed spectrum and Part 15 devices
    certified for unlicensed use.[^81] These parties argue for creation
    of a "tribal lands exception" in the Part 15 rules to facilitate the
    deployment of broadband radio systems in tribal lands by allowing
    more powerful transmission devices and removing restrictions
    pertaining to antennas in such areas. We are encouraged by these
    proposals, and have recently initiated a proceeding to consider
    possible changes to our Part 15 rules that could facilitate the
    development of such unlicensed systems.[^82] Therefore, we will
    defer consideration of this issue to that proceeding.[^83] In the
    meantime, we encourage these parties to work with tribal authorities
    on specific broadband proposals. As we expressed in our *Section*
    *706 Report*, we intend to ensure that advanced telecommunications
    capabilities are available to all Americans, which include Native
    Americans.[^84] Thus, to the extent that proposals are presented to
    us, we are prepared to grant relief expeditiously on a case-by-case
    basis for wireless data and voice over Internet protocol radios not
    only with respect to power and antenna characteristics, but also
    tower placement, width of spectrum bands and self-regulating
    software control of radios for devices deployed on tribal
    lands,[^85] provided that such relief facilitates improved service
    to tribal lands without causing interference to adjacent or
    co-channel licensees.

### Expansion of Permissible Service Definitions

48. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Notice*, we stated that, in some
    private wireless services, our rules preclude use of the spectrum
    for the provision of commercial service, including basic telephony,
    to the public. Some of these services are dedicated to private,
    internal use by businesses or limited classes of eligible users,
    while others are intended for government or public safety use. These
    service categories include both fixed services, *e.g.*, private
    point-to-point microwave, and private land mobile radio (PLMR)
    services.[^86] We solicited comment on whether the prospects for
    extending wireless telephony to tribal lands would be enhanced by
    relaxing restrictions on commercial use of spectrum in tribal lands
    by some categories of private radio licensees.[^87] We also
    requested comment on whether to relax permissible use limitations on
    certain services to allow expanded service offerings, e.g., allowing
    data messaging services on private services otherwise limited to
    voice traffic.[^88]

49. [Discussion.]{.underline} PLMRS operators have already been granted
    considerable flexibility under existing service definitions.[^89]
    Because service definitions for PLMRS are designed to allow
    interference-free operation of private radio systems and adjoining
    common carrier systems, it is not clear that rule changes would
    create additional incentives for carriers to buildout tribal areas.
    Nevertheless, if carriers believe that relaxation of our rules in
    particular cases may facilitate a higher level of service to tribal
    lands, we strongly encourage the filing of waiver requests. We find
    that granting flexible use of spectrum on a case-by-case basis would
    be in the public interest because such requests would set forth the
    particular technical parameters of the proposed operations along
    with assurances that such operations would be restricted to tribal
    areas and would not compromise any existing public safety services
    or interfere with other adjacent or co-channel licensees.

### Satellite Policies for Existing/Future Satellite Licensees

50. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Notice*, we sought comment on the
    effectiveness of satellite technologies as a means of deploying
    communications services to tribal lands.[^90] In particular, we
    sought comment on any satellite policies that we can adopt, or
    regulations that we should eliminate or streamline to promote the
    deployment of satellite services in tribal lands.

51. [Discussion.]{.underline} The Commission recently observed that
    "satellites are an excellent technology for delivering both basic
    and advanced telecommunication services to unserved, rural, insular
    or economically isolated areas, including Native American
    communities, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico . . .."[^91] In the
    1994 *Big LEO Report & Order,* the Commission explained that the
    "new mobile satellite service \[Big LEO\] will offer Americans in
    rural areas that are not otherwise linked to the communications
    infrastructure immediate access to a feature-rich communications
    network."[^92] We also note that ICO has recently made a commitment
    to provide telephone and Internet service to noncommercial locations
    on tribal lands at a discount of up to 50 percent from applicable
    retail rates.[^93]

52. We conclude that existing satellite services may offer a means of
    providing service to tribal lands. Such services could not only be
    used for telecommunications services but could also provide a
    platform for telemedicine and other services to remote areas.
    However, while there are certain common factors that apply to each
    technical situation in the provision of service to tribal lands, it
    appears that there is no one solution or solutions that would
    necessarily assure that each area would receive thorough coverage.
    We conclude that technical and administrative hurdles to the
    provision of satellite service to these areas are best considered on
    a case-by-case basis, and will entertain waiver requests as
    necessary to facilitate such deployment.[^94] We anticipate that
    grant of such waivers would be contingent upon each provider's
    agreement to serve tribal areas and otherwise adhere to rules
    governing interference with existing services. Additionally, the
    grant of such a waiver would be based on the existence of a binding
    agreement between the provider and relevant tribal authority.

53. Several commenters have advocated or opposed spectrum licensing
    incentives to encourage the provision of satellite services to
    tribal lands.[^95] Policies or rules that might be implemented to
    encourage the provision of 2 GHz mobile satellite services \[MSS\]
    will be addressed in that proceeding.[^96]

54. We note that in this proceeding, Onsat has proposed to operate a
    system using VSAT technology with existing 3.7 meter C-Band antennas
    to provide low-cost Internet access primarily to institutional users
    in rural areas. This proposal would require that we waive section
    25.212(d) of our rules[^97] to allow blanket licensing of 3.7-meter
    C-Band dishes rather than requiring the VSAT operator to apply for a
    license for each transmit and receive site individually. Onsat
    asserts that C-Band systems using 3.7 meter dishes are functionally
    equivalent or superior to Ku-Band dishes that are already permitted
    to operate under blanket VSAT licenses.[^98] Onsat has petitioned
    for a waiver of satellite earth station processing rules and the
    petition is being considered in a separate proceeding.[^99]

55. Other commenters urge the implementation of satellite systems, such
    as Spaceway and Skybridge, in order to serve tribal areas along with
    the rest of their proposed service areas.[^100] The Spaceway Ka band
    satellite system has been licensed and broadband communications
    service to the entire United States is planned for 2002. In its
    comments, Hughes maintains that it will be able to reach a larger
    number of total customers, including a larger number of customers in
    tribal and rural areas, if it received more Ka band downlink
    spectrum.[^101] Its request for additional spectrum is
    pending.[^102] SkyBridge is an applicant for a license for authority
    to launch and operate a global nongeostationary \[NGSO\] satellite
    system. Broadband services would be accessed through a small
    satellite dish.[^103] Titan Wireless recommends that we foster
    service to tribal lands by lifting the freeze on acceptance of FSS
    earth station applications in the extended C-Band at 3650-3700
    MHz.[^104] We defer any decisions concerning these systems to
    ongoing proceedings that deal specifically with those systems.[^105]

## Licensing of New Services/Spectrum

### Unallocated or Unlicensed Spectrum

56. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on
    identifying frequency bands that are not currently allocated for
    telecommunications service, or that are allocated for
    telecommunications service but not assigned to any licensee that
    could potentially be used to provide basic telephone service on
    tribal lands/unserved areas. We specifically sought comment on
    identifying any unlicensed or unallocated bands on which WLL or
    similar technologies could be used to facilitate efforts to provide
    low-cost service in unserved communities such as tribal lands.[^106]

57. [Discussion]{.underline}. We conclude that, while frequency bands
    that meet these criteria may exist, it is premature for us to
    address spectrum allocation issues in this proceeding. We agree with
    commenters who oppose the allocation of new spectrum for tribal
    lands alone, arguing instead that spectrum policy should be set on a
    national basis, in a proceeding that enables us and interested
    parties to consider competing needs and spectrum demands and develop
    the most appropriate national policies for licensing spectrum.[^107]
    Furthermore, we are not convinced that lack of spectrum is a
    dispositive factor in the provision of service to tribal lands and
    other unserved areas. [^108]

58. We further agree with commenters who contend that allocating
    frequencies to provide new wireless services would not necessarily
    be effective in promoting the provision of cellular service to
    tribal lands and that more allocations do not guarantee more
    service.[^109] We believe that the actions that we take in this
    order will effectively afford access to telecommunications for
    tribal lands and other unserved areas without allocating additional
    spectrum for this purpose. We may, however, revisit the spectrum
    issue for tribal lands at a later time if it becomes necessary.

### Licensing in Spectrum Bands Allocated to Other Services and Extensions into Adjacent Licensing Areas

59. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we also sought comment on
    identifying unused channels in otherwise allocated and licensed
    spectrum and whether to allow "drop-in" licensing of such channels
    to provide service to tribal lands/unserved areas.[^110] We also
    sought comment on whether licensees should be allowed to expand
    their coverage into adjacent licensing areas to provide full
    coverage to a tribal land, provided that such coverage does not
    cause interference to the adjacent licensee's actual
    operations.[^111]

60. [Discussion]{.underline}. We find that at the present time and in
    view of the mechanisms that we have outlined in this Order to
    encourage provision of telecommunications services to tribal lands,
    "drop-in" licensing is unnecessary to accomplish our goals.
    Additionally, as several commenters attest, existing technical
    practices utilized by cellular licensees to maximize efficiency and
    deal with potential interference may preclude "drop-in" licensees
    from operating on cellular frequencies in the same markets as the
    cellular licensees because such operation could create technical and
    other practical problems. [^112]

61. NTIA objects specifically to the sharing of spectrum between
    Government and non-Government entities in such a way that the
    drop-in licensee is designated as having an allocation making it the
    primary or co-primary user of the band. NTIA contends that the first
    approach could detrimentally affect critical Government operations,
    including safety of life, national security and defense, law
    enforcement and radio astronomy. NTIA further contends that
    affording co-primary status to the drop-licensee might result in
    these Government operations having to be eliminated, significantly
    curtailed or relocated at a substantial cost to taxpayers. NTIA
    accordingly recommends that drop-in licenses should be considered
    only on a secondary basis to existing Government operations. [^113]

62. As in our discussion of spectrum allocation above, we are not
    convinced that a spectrum shortage is the reason tribal lands are
    not being adequately served,[^114] although we recognize that new
    technologies are on the horizon that might cause us to revisit
    whether to allow wireless communications service providers in tribal
    areas to access spectrum already allocated for other purposes.[^115]
    We also note that we have adopted partitioning and disaggregation
    rules for wireless licensees in order to provide them with the
    flexibility to use their spectrum more efficiently.[^116] Therefore,
    although we choose not to adopt drop-in licensing at this time, our
    partitioning and disaggregation policies provide a mechanism for
    licensees and other interested parties to make use of
    already-licensed unused spectrum to serve tribal lands.

63. In addition, we decline to amend our rules to allow licensees to
    expand coverage into adjacent licensing areas to provide full
    coverage to a tribal land. We however encourage parties seeking to
    expand coverage into adjacent licensing areas to file waivers where
    such relief would facilitate the provision of service to tribal
    lands.

### Drawing Geographic Boundaries

64. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on how
    best to establish licensing area boundaries for new services that
    will not splinter tribal lands among multiple licensees.[^117]

65. [Discussion]{.underline}. We agree with commenters that we should
    consider tribal land boundaries in establishing license areas for
    future services and endeavor to avoid splitting tribal lands into
    multiple licensing areas.[^118] However, we do not favor creating
    small license areas comprised exclusively or primarily of tribal
    lands. We find that tribal lands should generally be included in a
    larger licensing area to enable licensees to use profits derived
    from serving lower cost areas to provide service to typically high
    cost, tribal areas. While we recognize that it is difficult for
    small carriers seeking to serve rural areas to afford to compete in
    spectrum auctions with large carriers seeking to serve urban
    areas,[^119]this concern is mitigated by the availability of small
    business credits which are designed to level the playing field for
    competing carriers. We therefore will take tribal land boundaries
    into account when drawing geographic licensing areas for new
    services.

# IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING {#iv.-further-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking .unnumbered}

66. In this *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, we seek comment on
    other possible uses of bidding credits to encourage deployment of
    wireless services to tribal communities. Specifically, we seek
    comment on: (1) whether we should award bidding credits to carriers
    who commit to serve non-tribal areas and/or tribal areas with
    penetration levels above 70 percent, but significantly below the
    national average; (2) whether to expand the bidding credit program
    by awarding transferable credits for use in future auctions to
    existing licensees in already-established wireless services who
    deploy facilities and provide service to unserved tribal
    communities; and (3) whether to make credits available to licensees
    that enter into partitioning agreements with tribal authorities that
    allow the tribal government to provide service, either directly or
    through negotiation with a third-party carrier.

## Bidding Credits for Non-Tribal Areas

67. We seek comment on whether to award bidding credits to entities that
    provide service to non-tribal areas on the same terms and conditions
    that we have established for entities that serve tribal areas. As
    noted above, in contrast to tribal areas, there are very few
    non-tribal areas where telephone penetration levels are at 70
    percent or below. Thus, extending bidding credits to these
    non-tribal areas may have relatively little impact. However, if we
    were to increase the penetration threshold for the bidding credit to
    a level higher than 70 percent at some point in the future, it could
    benefit non-tribal as well as tribal areas that have penetration
    levels above 70 percent, but still significantly below the national
    average.[^120] We therefore seek comment on whether we should extend
    the bidding credit to areas with penetration levels above 70
    percent, and if so, whether it should apply equally to non-tribal as
    well as to tribal areas. Commenters should address whether the use
    of bidding credits to encourage deployment of wireless services is
    likely to affect access to telecommunications services in these
    areas.

68. In addition, if we extend the credit to non-tribal areas, we seek
    comment how to define the geographic areas triggering eligibility
    for the credit and the penetration threshold. Specifically, should
    we use penetration rates on a county-by-county basis in defining
    areas that qualify for the credit? We also seek comment on what
    provisions should be made for certification and administrative
    oversight of the buildout process in the non-tribal context.
    Commenters should address safeguards or conditions necessary to
    ensure that the credits further the goals of enhanced access to
    telecommunications for all Americans, such as buildout and other
    performance requirements.

## B. Transferable Bidding Credits for Existing Licensees that Commence Service in Tribal Areas {#b.-transferable-bidding-credits-for-existing-licensees-that-commence-service-in-tribal-areas .unnumbered}

69. The bidding credit mechanism adopted in the *Report and Order* will
    provide significant incentives to auction applicants to serve tribal
    lands. However, by their nature, these bidding credits can only be
    applied in the auction in which they are obtained. Thus, they are
    not available as an incentive to carriers that may wish to provide
    service to tribal lands using licenses obtained in prior auctions or
    through assignment or transfer. Because bidding credits have limited
    applicability in this respect, we seek comment on whether to
    establish additional bidding credit incentives that will encourage
    both existing and prospective carriers to deploy facilities and
    serve tribal communities.

70. Specifically, we seek comment on whether, in addition to bidding
    credits awarded in particular auctions, a more flexible form of
    credit could be made available to existing licensees who deploy
    facilities and offer service to qualifying tribal lands using
    already-licensed spectrum. Under this alternative, existing carriers
    who in the future use their existing spectrum to buildout qualifying
    tribal areas could obtain bidding credits usable in future auctions.
    Because of the high costs generally associated with providing
    service to tribal lands, offering this type of credit could provide
    a significant incentive for licensees to use their existing spectrum
    to provide service to these areas. Moreover, in contrast to the
    auction-specific bidding credit established in the *Report and
    Order*, it would be unnecessary to impose future conditions on the
    credit, because this form of credit would only be awarded where a
    licensee has already deployed facilities to tribal lands.[^121] We
    seek comment on this proposal.

71. We seek comment on our legal authority under Section 309(j) to adopt
    this form of bidding credit. We tentatively believe that we have the
    necessary flexibility under Section 309(j) to adopt this initiative
    and that this type of bidding credit serves the important
    Congressional objectives set forth in Section 309(j)(3),
    including: (1) facilitating the rapid and efficient deployment of
    wire and radio communications "to all the people of the United
    States;"[^122] (2) fostering "the development and rapid deployment
    of new technologies, products, and services for the benefit of the
    public, including those residing in rural areas;"[^123] and (3)
    promoting "efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic
    spectrum."[^124] We also note that Section 706(A) of the Act
    provides the Commission authority to remove barriers to
    infrastructure investment on tribal lands. [^125] We seek comment on
    this analysis. We also seek comment on the possibility of making
    this type of bidding credit transferable to third parties for use in
    future auctions. Presumably, transfer of a credit under these
    circumstances would not affect the transferor's provision of service
    to tribal lands. Moreover, transferability could heighten the
    attractiveness of such credits, particularly to licensees that may
    be disinclined to participate in future auctions, but that could
    negotiate to transfer the credit to a more likely future bidder. We
    seek comment on this view.

72. We also seek comment on mechanisms for implementing this type of
    credit. Should we use the same formula adopted in this order to
    calculate the credit? Should we apply the same coverage criteria?
    Should we permit carriers to combine this bidding credit with other
    tribal lands bidding credits and DE bidding credits in the same
    auction, where a bidder proposes to serve additional qualifying
    tribal lands? Do we need additional compliance measures to prevent
    abuse of our auctions process? We also seek comment on whether we
    could use a competitive bidding mechanism to award the bidding
    credit to the carrier willing to deploy facilities for the smallest
    credit amount. Other issues on which we seek comment include: (1)
    should we limit the number of licensees, between or within the same
    services, eligible to receive bidding credits for serving tribal
    lands in the same geographic area (for example, should a 700 MHz
    licensee and 39 GHz licensee providing similar services in the same
    geographic area each be eligible for a credit)?; (2) is it realistic
    to think that the tribal lands could support more than one
    provider?; and (3) how would our various license area determinations
    (i.e. MTA, BTA, EA) affect who receives a bidding credit and the
    amount?

## C. Transferable Bidding Credits for Licensees that Partition Tribal Areas {#c.-transferable-bidding-credits-for-licensees-that-partition-tribal-areas .unnumbered}

73. Finally, we seek comment on whether bidding credits should be made
    available to carriers that enter into certain types of partitioning
    arrangements that facilitate deployment of service to tribal areas.
    Under this alternative, we would award a credit to any geographic
    area licensee that partitioned that portion of its license area
    covering tribal lands to a tribal government. We seek comment on
    what terms and conditions should apply to such partitioning
    agreements to make them eligible for the credit, and what sanctions
    should be applied in the event of non-compliance with those terms
    and conditions.

# Procedural Matters

## *Ex Parte* Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

74. This proceeding is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment
    rulemaking proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted,
    except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are
    disclosed as provided in Commission rules. *See generally* 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206.

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

75. The Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    for the Report and Order, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility
    Act. *See* Appendix C.

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

76. The Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis for the *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, as
    required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. *See* Appendix D.

## Comment Dates

77. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or
    before the date that is 30 days after publication of the Further
    Notice in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before the
    date that is 45 days after publications of the Further Notice in the
    Federal Register. Comments may be filed using the Commission's
    Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
    See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63
    Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998).

78. Comments filed through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via
    the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Only one copy
    of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the
    transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name,
    Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
    rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
    Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
    commenters should send an e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and should
    include the following words in the body of the message, "get from
    \<your e-mail address\>." A sample form and directions will be sent
    in reply.

79. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If participants would like each Commissioner
    to receive a personal copy of their comments, an original plus nine
    copies must be filed. All filings must be sent to the Commission's
    Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, The Portals, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,
    Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.

80. All relevant and timely comments will be considered by the
    Commission before final action is taken in this proceeding. Comments
    and reply comments will be available for public inspection during
    regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, The Portals, 445
    Twelfth Street, S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

81. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i),
    303(r), and 309(j), IT IS ORDERED that the REPORT AND ORDER is
    hereby ADOPTED.

82. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 309(j)
    and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    151, 154(i), 303(r), 309(j), and 706, that the FURTHER NOTICE OF
    PROPOSED RULEMAKING is hereby ADOPTED.

83. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's rules ARE AMENDED as set
    forth in Appendix B. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of
    the *Report and Order* and the Commission's rules, as amended in
    Appendix B, shall become effective 60 days after publication of the
    Report and Order in the Federal Register.

84. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the Small Business Administration.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Magalie Roman Salas Secretary

APPENDIX A

[Comments]{.underline}

1.  Advocacy Office of, US Small Business Administration

2.  AirTouch Communications and Globalstar USA, Inc.

3.  All Indian Pueblo Council

# American Association Of Educational Service Agencies, American Association Of School Administrators, American Library Consortium For School Networking, International Society For Technology In Education, National Education Association, National Rural Education Association, OMB Watch, And Organizations Concerned About Rural Education

4.  AMSC Subsidiary Corporation

5.  Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc.

6.  Boeing Company (The)

7.  CCI International NV

8.  Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association

9.  Celsat America, Inc.

10. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority

11. Chickasaw Nation

12. Convey, LLC

13. Cook Inlet Region, Inc.

14. Dandin Group

15. Dobson Communications Corporation

16. ECI TeleCom

17. Dr. Joseph Gitlin of Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Dr. Ray
    Kilcoyne of the University of Colorado School of Medicine, De. Sero
    Manson of the University of Colorado School of Medicine

18. Gila River Telecommunications, Inc.

19. Higher Education Parties: Educause American Indian Higher Education
    Consortium

20. Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc.

21. Innowave ECI Wireless Systems, Ltd.

22. Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

23. Mohegan Tribe

24. Montana Telecommunications Association

25. Motorola, Iridium North America, and Iridium LLC

26. National Science Foundation Wireless Field Tests for Education
    Project

27. National Telephone Cooperative Association

28. Nortel Networks

29. Oglala Sioux Tribe

30. Oneida Nation of Wisconsin

31. Onsat Network Communications, Inc.

32. Personal Communications Industry Association

33. Picuris Pueblo

34. Rural Telecommunications Group

35. San Carlos Apache Telecommunications

36. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the National Tribal
    Telecommunications Alliance

37. Satellite Industry Association

38. SkyBridge, LLC

39. State of Alaska

40. Titan Wireless

41. Tohono O'Odham Utility Authority

42. Tribal Nations Link-up, Inc.

43. US Cellular Corporation

44. Western Wireless Corporation

## [Reply Comments]{.underline} {#reply-comments .unnumbered}

1.  Advocacy Office, U.S. Small Business Administration

2.  Celsat America, Inc.

3.  Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority

4.  Dandin Group

5.  Educause & AIHEC

6.  FreeSpace Communications

7.  Dr. Joseph Gitlin of Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Dr. Ray
    Kilcoyne of the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Dr. Sero
    Manson of the University of Colorado School of Medicine

8.  Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc.

9.  Montana Public Service Commission

10. Motorola, Inc, Iridium North America, and Iridium LLC

11. National Telecommunications and Information Administration

12. Nez Perce Tribe

13. PanAmSat Corporation

14. Personal Communications Industry Association

15. Roger L. Scheer

16. Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe

17. South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition, Inc.

18. Turtle Island Communications, Inc.

19. Walker River Paiute Tribe

***Ex Parte* Submissions**

1.  Innowave ECI Wireless Systems LTD.

2.  Stephen Nacci

3.  Linda Riley

4.  Rural Telephone Coalition

5.  Rural Telecommunications Group

6.  San Carlos apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc.

7.  Roger L. Scheer

8.  Smith Bagley, Inc.

9.  Transacomm Inc.

10. Turtle Island Communications, Inc.

11. Western Wireless Corporation

APPENDIX B

Subpart Q of Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

1.  Section 1.2107 is amended by renumbering existing paragraph (e) to
    become new paragraph (f), and by adding new paragraph (e) as
    follows:

> \(e\) A winning bidder that seeks a bidding credit to serve a
> qualifying tribal land, as defined in section 1.2110(e)(3)(1) of our
> rules, within a particular market must indicate on the long-form
> application (FCC From 601) that it intends to serve a qualifying
> tribal land within that market.

2\. Section 1.2110(e) is amended by adding new paragraph (3) as follows:

(3) *Bidding credit for serving qualifying tribal land*: A winning
    bidder for a market will be eligible to receive a bidding credit for
    serving a qualifying tribal land within that market, provided that
    it complies with section 1.2107(e). The following definition, terms,
    and conditions shall apply for the purposes of this section and
    section 1.2107(e):

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(i) Qualifying tribal land "means any federally recognized Indian
    tribe's reservation, Pueblo, or Colony, including former
    reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska Native regions established pursuant
    to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), and
    Indian allotments," (s*ee* 25 C.F.R. § 20.1(v)), that has a wireline
    telephone subscription rate equal to or less than seventy (70)
    percent based on the most recently available U.S. Census Data.

(ii) *Certification*. Within ninety (90) days after the filing deadline
     for long-form applications, the winning bidder must amend its
     long-form application and attach a certification from the tribal
     government stating the following: (1) the tribal government
     authorizes the winning bidder to site facilities and provide
     service on its tribal land, (2) the tribal area to be served by the
     winning bidder constitutes qualifying tribal land; and (3) the
     tribal government has not and will not enter into an exclusive
     contract with the applicant precluding entry by other carriers, and
     will not unreasonably discriminate among wireless carriers seeking
     to provide service on the qualifying tribal land. In addition,
     within ninety (90) days after the filing deadline for long-form
     applications, the winning bidder must amend its long-form
     application and file a certification that it will consult with the
     tribal government regarding the siting of facilities and deployment
     of service on the tribal land.

(iii) *Bidding credit formula.* Subject to the applicable bidding credit
      limit set forth in section 1.2110(e)(3)(iv), the bidding credit
      shall equal three hundred thousand (300,000) dollars for the first
      two-hundred (200) square miles (518 square kilometers) of
      qualifying tribal land, and fifteen hundred (1500) dollars for
      each additional square mile (2.590 square kilometer) of qualifying
      tribal land above two-hundred (200) square miles (518 square
      kilometers).

(iv) *Bidding Credit Limit*. If the high bid is equal to or less than
     one million (1,000,000) dollars, the maximum bidding credit
     calculated pursuant to section 1.2110(e)(3)(iii) shall not exceed
     fifty (50) percent of the high bid. If the high bid is greater than
     one million (1,000,000) dollars, but equal to or less than two
     million (2,000,000) dollars, the maximum bidding credit calculated
     pursuant to section 1.2110(e)(3)(iii) shall not exceed five hundred
     thousand (500,000) dollars. If the high bid is greater than two
     million (2,000,000) dollars, the maximum bidding credit calculated
     pursuant to section 1.2110(e)(3)(iii) shall not exceed twenty
     five (25) percent of the high bid.

(v) *Application of credit.* The bidding credit amount, if approved by
    the Commission, will be subtracted from the final net bid amount.
    The bidding credit will not affect calculation of the down payment.

(vi) *Post-construction certification.* Within fifteen (15) days of the
     third anniversary of the initial grant of its license, a recipient
     of a bidding credit under this section shall file a certification
     that the recipient has constructed and is operating a system
     capable of serving seventy-five (75) percent of the population of
     the qualifying tribal land for which the credit was awarded.

(vii) *Performance penalties*. If a recipient of a bidding credit under
      this section fails to provide the post-construction certification
      required by section 1.2110(e)(3)(vi), then it shall repay the
      bidding credit amount in its entirety, plus interest. The interest
      will be based on the rate for ten year U.S. Treasury obligations
      applicable on the date the license is granted. Such payment shall
      be made within thirty (30) days of the third anniversary of the
      initial grant of its license.

APPENDIX C

FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

Number range level0Number range level1Number range level2Number range
level3Number range level4Number range level5Number range level6Number
range level7As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA),[^126] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Notice*) in WT
Docket No. 99-266.[^127] The Commission sought written comment on the
policies and rules proposed in the *Notice*, including comment on the
IRFA. The comment received is discussed below. This Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for the *Report and Order* conforms to the
RFA.[^128]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order**

The record in this proceeding demonstrates that there is a substantial
need for specific incentives targeted to the deployment of service on
tribal lands. By virtually any measure, communities on tribal lands have
historically had less access to telecommunications services than any
other segment of the population. As set forth in Section III.A of the
*Report and Order*, 1990 Census data indicates that 23 of the 48 largest
tribal reservations (those with 500 or more households) had telephone
penetration rates below 60 percent, and 16 of these reservations had a
penetration rate below 50 percent. By contrast, the current nationwide
telephone penetration rate is 94 percent. We believe telephone service
is a necessity in today's world. The lack of basic telecommunications
services puts affected tribal communities at a social and economic
disadvantage.

The *Report and Order* adopts rules and policies that provide incentives
for wireless telecommunications carriers to serve individuals living on
tribal lands. We make bidding credits available in future auctions to
winning bidders who commit to deploy facilities to tribal areas that
have a telephone service penetration rate at or below 70 percent. We
also express our commitment to work with carriers seeking flexibility
under our technical and operational rules to promote deployment of
wireless services on tribal lands.

B.  **Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comment in Response
    to the IRFA**

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy (SBA),
    submitted a response to the IRFA. SBA argues that the Commission's
    IRFA was insufficient because it did not assess the significant
    economic impact certain proposals may have on small businesses nor
    did it propose alternatives that might minimize any impact.[^129]
    SBA also argues more specifically that the Commission's proposal to
    lift designated entity (DE) transfer restrictions may disadvantage
    small businesses.[^130] Further, SBA claims that the proposal to
    award bidding credits to any entity, regardless of size, that
    commits to serve tribal lands may provide big businesses an unfair
    advantage.[^131]

    We disagree with SBA's argument that we did not consider
    alternatives to minimize any significant economic impact on small
    entities. We discussed in the IRFA the alternative of using
    unallocated or unlicensed spectrum by telecommunications providers,
    including small entities, to serve the needs of tribal lands.
    Similarly, we discussed the use of channels within licensed spectrum
    to achieve a similar result, and sought comment on these
    alternatives. SBA also argues against lifting the DE transfer
    restrictions, which was an alternative we set forth in the *Notice*.
    This argument is moot, however, because we do not adopt this
    proposal in the *Report and Order*. Last, SBA states that we
    proposed to "offer bidding credits in future auctions regardless of
    business size."[^132] However, in this proceeding we have not
    changed the generally available bidding credit that is offered to
    small businesses, and our new tribal lands bidding credit is offered
    in addition to the small business bidding credit. This additional,
    targeted incentive for tribal areas does not detract from our
    separate effort to assist small businesses through the small
    business bidding credit. For small businesses, the two credits may
    be combined.[^133]

C.  Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which
    the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    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 proposed rules, if adopted.[^134] The RFA generally
    defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
    terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
    governmental jurisdiction.\"[^135] In addition, the term \"small
    business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business
    concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^136] 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.[^137] A small
    organization is generally \"any not-for-profit enterprise which is
    independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
    field.\"[^138] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately
    275,801 small organizations.[^139] And finally, \"Small governmental
    jurisdiction\" generally means \"governments of cities, counties,
    towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
    with a population of less than 50,000.\"[^140] As of 1992, there
    were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United
    States.[^141] This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and
    towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer
    than 50,000.[^142] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is
    approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the
    85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 percent)
    are small entities.

    SBA has developed a definition of small entities for radiotelephone
    (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were
    1,176 such companies in operation for at least one year at the end
    of 1992.[^143] According to SBA\'s definition, a small business
    radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^144] The Census Bureau also reported that 1,164 of those
    radiotelephone companies had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even
    if all of the remaining 12 companies had more than 1,500 employees,
    there would still be 1,164 radiotelephone companies that might
    qualify as small entities if they are independently owned and
    operated. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are
    not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to
    estimate with greater precision the number of radiotelephone
    carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business
    concerns under SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that
    there are fewer than 1,164 small entity radiotelephone companies
    that may be affected by the policies and rules adopted in the
    *Report and Order*.

    Below, we further describe and estimate the number of wireless small
    business concerns that may be affected by the rules we adopt in the
    *Report and Order*.

    *Cellular Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
    developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular
    licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is
    the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone
    (wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity is a
    radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^145]
    According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone
    firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992
    had 1,000 or more employees.[^146] Therefore, even if all twelve of
    these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular
    carriers were small businesses under the SBA\'s definition. In
    addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, a
    cellular licensee may own several licenses. In addition, according
    to the most recent *Telecommunications Industry Revenue* data, 808
    carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either
    cellular service or Personal Communications Service (PCS) services,
    which are placed together in the data.[^147] We do not have data
    specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently
    owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are
    unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
    cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business
    concerns under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that
    there are fewer than 808 small cellular service carriers that may be
    affected by the rules adopted herein.

    *Broadband PCS Licensees.* The broadband PCS spectrum is divided
    into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission
    has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined \"small
    entity\'\' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross
    revenues of less than \$40 million in the three previous calendar
    years.[^148] For Block F, an additional classification for \"very
    small business\" was added and is defined as an entity that,
    together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not
    more than \$15 million for the preceding three calendar years.[^149]
    These regulations defining \"small entity\'\' in the context of
    broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA.[^150] No small
    businesses within the SBA-approved definition bid successfully for
    licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that
    qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93
    small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the
    1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.[^151] Based on this
    information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS
    licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93
    qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183
    small entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the
    Commission\'s auction rules.

*SMR Licensees.* The Commission awards bidding credits in auctions for
geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses to firms that had
revenues of no more than \$15 million in each of the three previous
calendar years.[^152] In the context of 900 MHz SMR, this regulation
defining \"small entity\" has been approved by the SBA; approval
concerning 800 MHz SMR is being sought. We do not know how many firms
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to
extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers
have annual revenues of no more than \$15 million. One firm has over
\$15 million in revenues. We assume, for purposes of this FRFA, that all
of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are
held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. For
geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band, there are 60 who
qualified as small entities. For the 800 MHz SMR\'s, 38 are small or
very small entities.

*220 MHz Radio Service \-- Phase I Licensees*. The 220 MHz service has
both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by
lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such
non‑nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently
authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such
incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such
licensees that are small businesses, we apply the definition under the
SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone Communications companies. This
definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company
employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^153] According to the Bureau of
the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such
firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.[^154]
Therefore, if this general ratio continues in 2000 in the context of
Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees
are small businesses under the SBA\'s definition.

*220 MHz Radio* S*ervice \-- Phase II Licensees*. The Phase II 220 MHz
service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the
220 MHz *Third Report and Order*, we adopted criteria for defining small
businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their
eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments.[^155] We have defined a small business as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, a very small business is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the
preceding three years.[^156] The SBA has approved these
definitions.[^157] An auction of Phase II licenses commenced on
September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.[^158] Nine hundred
and eight (908) licenses were auctioned in 3 different‑sized geographic
areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group
Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses
auctioned, 693 were sold. Companies claiming small business status won:
one of the Nationwide licenses, 67% of the Regional licenses, and 54% of
the EA licenses. As of January 22, 1999, the Commission announced that
it was prepared to grant 654 of the Phase II licenses won at
auction.[^159]

*Paging Licensees*. The Commission has adopted a two-tier definition of
small businesses in the context of auctioning licenses in the Common
Carrier Paging and exclusive Private Carrier Paging services. A small
business will be defined as either (1) an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more than \$3 million, or (2) an entity
that, together with affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of not more than
\$15 million. Because the SBA has not yet approved this definition for
paging services, we will utilize the SBA\'s definition applicable to
radiotelephone companies, [i.e.]{.underline}, an entity employing no
more than 1,500 persons.[^160] At present, there are approximately
24,000 Private Paging licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging
licenses. According to the most recent *Telecommunications Industry
Revenue* data, 172 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of either paging or \"other mobile\" services, which are
placed together in the data.[^161] We do not have data specifying the
number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated
or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of paging carriers that would
qualify as small business concerns under the SBA\'s definition.
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 172 small paging
carriers that may be affected by the proposed rules, herein adopted. We
estimate that the majority of private and common carrier paging
providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

*Narrowband PCS Licensees*. The Commission has auctioned nationwide and
regional licenses for narrowband PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30
regional licensees for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have
sufficient information to determine whether any of these licensees are
small businesses within the SBA-approved definition for radiotelephone
companies. Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have no more
than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number of
prospective narrowband licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of
this FRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities,
as that term is defined by the SBA.

*Rural Radiotelephone Service*. The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service.[^162] A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS).[^163] We will use
the SBA\'s definition applicable to radiotelephone companies,
[i.e.]{.underline}, an entity employing no more than 1,500
persons.[^164] There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify
as small entities under the SBA\'s definition.

*Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service*. The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service.[^165] Accordingly, we will use the SBA\'s definition applicable
to radiotelephone companies, [i.e]{.underline}., an entity employing no
more than 1,500 persons.[^166] There are approximately 100 licensees in
the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all
of them qualify as small under the SBA definition.

*Fixed Microwave Services*. Microwave services include common
carrier,[^167] private‑operational fixed,[^168] and broadcast auxiliary
radio services.[^169] At present, there are approximately 22,015 common
carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational‑fixed licensees
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The
Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to
microwave services. For purposes of this IRFA, we will utilize the
SBA\'s definition applicable to radiotelephone companies \--
[i.e.]{.underline}, an entity with no more than 1,500 persons.[^170] We
estimate, for this purpose, that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees
(excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition for radiotelephone companies.

*Offshore Radiotelephone Service*. This service operates on several UHF
TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the
coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico.[^171] At
present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. We are
unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would
qualify as small under the SBA\'s definition for radiotelephone
communications.

*Wireless Communications Services*. This service can be used for fixed,
mobile, radiolocation and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The
Commission defined \"small business\" for the wireless communications
services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of \$40
million for each of the three preceding years, and a \"very small
business\" as an entity with average gross revenues of \$15 million for
each of the three preceding years. The Commission auctioned geographic
area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven
winning bidders that qualified as very small business entities, and one
that qualified as a small business entity. We conclude that the number
of geographic area WCS licensees affected includes these eight entities.

*Multipoint Distribution Systems (MDS)*. This service involves a variety
of transmitters, which are used to relay programming to the home or
office, similar to that provided by cable television systems.[^172] In
connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined small
businesses as entities that had annual average gross revenues for the
three preceding years not in excess of \$40 million.[^173] This
definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been
approved by the SBA.[^174] These stations were licensed prior to
implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.[^175] Licenses for new MDS facilities are now awarded to
auction winners in Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) and BTA-like areas.[^176]
The MDS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing
opportunities for 493 BTAs. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 meet the
definition of a small business. There are 2,050 MDS stations currently
licensed. Thus, we conclude that there are 1,634 MDS providers that are
small businesses as deemed by the SBA and the Commission\'s auction
rules.

D.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
    Compliance Requirements

    This *Report and Order* requires entities taking advantage of the
    tribal lands bidding credit to satisfy several reporting and
    compliance requirements. Section III.B.5 requires an applicant to
    indicate on its long-form application that it intends to serve
    qualifying tribal lands in its license area(s). Also, the applicant
    will have 90 days after filing the long-form application to obtain a
    certification by the affected tribal government providing: (a) its
    consent to allow the bidder to deploy facilities on its tribal
    land(s), in accordance with our rules, (b) a statement that the
    tribal government has not and will not enter into an exclusive
    contract with the applicant precluding entry by other carriers and
    will not unreasonably discriminate against any carrier, and (c)
    confirmation that the tribal lands are qualifying tribal lands as
    defined in our rules. In addition, an applicant must certify that it
    will comply with certain coverage requirements and consult with the
    tribal government regarding the siting of facilities and deployment
    of service on the tribal land. Further, at the end of the three-year
    build-out period, licensees that receive the tribal lands bidding
    credit must file a certification that they have satisfied the
    build-out requirements. To the extent that licensees choose to take
    advantage of any additional flexibility that we adopt, they may be
    required to comply with other reporting requirements.

    The rules we adopt allow entities 90 days from the filing deadline
    of the long-form application to obtain the consent of a tribal
    government to serve its tribal land. Negotiation periods will vary
    tremendously within this timeframe. We anticipate that some entities
    will employ an attorney (average of \$200.00 per hour) to assist
    with negotiations. It is difficult to approximate how long it may
    take to obtain the consent of a tribal government, nevertheless, we
    estimate that the cost of obtaining tribal consent should not exceed
    \$50,000.

    Preparation of the requisite certifications should be relatively
    straightforward, particularly since technical analyses are not
    required. We estimate that it will take two (2) hours to prepare the
    certifications and that entities will use in-house staff (average
    \$50.00 per hour), which should minimize costs. Since long-form
    applications are already required, we conclude that it should not
    take additional time to indicate an intention to take advantage of
    the tribal lands bidding credit.

E.  **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

    SBA claims that we did not sufficiently assess in the IRFA how small
    businesses could be affected by our decisions to seek comment on
    eliminating designated entity ("DE") transfer restrictions and
    awarding bidding credits in future auctions to entities that commit
    to deploy facilities to tribal lands. We disagree. The *Notice*
    sought comment on an array of alternatives, including the
    aforementioned, that the Commission could adopt to encourage the
    provision of wireless services to tribal areas. The RFA requires
    that the Commission ensure that regulations we adopt do not inhibit
    the ability of small entities to compete. The *Notice* did not
    propose to eliminate DE transfer restrictions, but rather sought
    comment on this alternative. In any event, the *Report and Order*
    does not address DE transfer restrictions.

    Likewise, we sought comment on whether to award bidding credits in
    future auctions to any entity, regardless of size, that commits to
    serve tribal lands. SBA claims that such a proposal would unfairly
    advantage large businesses. We disagree. The *Notice* sought comment
    on whether to combine any credit for serving tribal lands with the
    small business credits available under our rules. Thus, small
    entities could potentially receive two credits for a license area.
    We did not propose a specific implementation program, but rather
    sought comment from the industry as to how to structure the program,
    including whether to limit the credit to designated entities, the
    appropriate credit amount, and any necessary safeguards. In
    addition, we sought comment on how to minimize any economic impact
    on small entities.

    The *Report and Order* expands our bidding credit policy to
    facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunications services to
    tribal lands. Entities taking advantage of the credit must comply
    with certain reporting and compliance requirements. Expected costs
    include: (1) negotiating with and obtaining consent from tribal
    governments, (2) preparing the requisite certifications, and (3)
    deploying facilities to tribal areas. We conclude that obtaining
    tribal consent and deploying facilities to tribal areas may have a
    significant economic impact on small entities. Below, we discuss our
    efforts to minimize the economic impact on small entities in both of
    these areas.

    [Obtaining Tribal Consent]{.underline}

    As discussed in Section III.B.1 of the *Report and Order*, we find
    that tribal governments are uniquely situated to ensure that
    carriers who obtain credits will meet their commitments to deploy
    facilities to the tribal areas with the greatest need. Therefore,
    tribal consent is key to meeting the objectives of our bidding
    credit initiative. We recognize that negotiations with a tribal
    government could prove lengthy and costly, particularly where an
    entity seeks the consent of multiple tribal governments. To minimize
    the economic impact on successful bidders, we rejected our proposal
    to require entities taking advantage of the credit to file an
    executed agreement with tribal governments setting forth all the
    terms and conditions for deploying facilities and initiating service
    on tribal lands. We concluded that this approach would expand the
    negotiations process and prove overly burdensome. Instead, entities
    need only obtain the consent of the tribal authority and file two
    certifications, as set forth in Section III.B.5 of the *Report and
    Order*.

    [Deployment of Facilities]{.underline}

    Compliance with the coverage requirements may have a significant
    economic impact on small entities, particularly in instances where
    infrastructure costs for serving tribal lands exceed the available
    credit. The rules we adopt, however, should minimize the
    infrastructure costs for serving tribal areas. As set forth in
    Section III.B.4 of the *Report and Order*, we adopt several caps for
    the tribal lands bidding credit, depending on the gross bid amount
    of a license, which takes into account the potential recovery level
    for infrastructure costs. For example, for licenses with a gross bid
    amount up to \$1 million, carriers may receive a bidding credit up
    to 50 percent of the value of the license.[^177] Further, in
    instances where a carrier's infrastructure costs exceed the
    available credit, the carrier may seek a waiver to obtain additional
    credit, subject to the applicable caps. This should allow for
    substantial recovery of infrastructure costs, thus minimizing the
    economic impact on small entities.

    **Report to Congress:** The Commission will send a copy of the
    *Report and Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
    Congress pursuant to SBREFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). In
    addition, the Commission will send a copy of the *Report and Order*,
    including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy
    of the *Report and Order* and FRFA (or summaries thereof) also will
    be published in the Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

APPENDIX D

**INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^178] the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules proposed in the *Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking* (*Further Notice*).[^179] Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with
the filing deadlines for comments on the rest of the *Further Notice*,
provided in Section V.D, and they must have a separate and distinct
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission will
send a copy of the *Further Notice*, including the IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance
with the RFA.[^180] In addition, the *Further Notice* and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^181]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

The initiatives we adopt in the *Report and Order* should facilitate the
deployment of facilities, and ultimately service, to the most
underserved tribal communities. We recognize however, that there are
other areas, both tribal and non-tribal, that have penetration levels
above 70 percent, but still significantly below the nationwide average
of 94 percent. It is our goal to ensure that all Americans have access
to telecommunications service. In the *Further Notice*, we seek comment
on other possible uses of bidding credits to encourage deployment of
wireless facilities, and ultimately service, to these areas.

B.  **Legal Basis**

    We have authority under Sections 4(i), 303(r), 309(j) and 706 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r),
    309(j) and 706, to adopt the proposals set forth in the *Further
    Notice*.

C.  **Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which
    the Proposed Rules Will Apply.**

    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 proposed rules, if adopted.[^182] The RFA generally
    defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
    terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
    governmental jurisdiction.\"[^183] In addition, the term \"small
    business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business
    concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^184] 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 Small Business Administration
    (SBA).[^185]

    A small organization is generally \"any not-for-profit enterprise
    which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
    field.\"[^186] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately
    275,801 small organizations.[^187] And finally, \"small governmental
    jurisdiction\" generally means \"governments of cities, counties,
    towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
    with a population of less than 50,000.\"[^188] As of 1992, there
    were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United
    States.[^189] This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and
    towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer
    than 50,000.[^190] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is
    approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the
    85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 percent)
    are small entities.

    SBA has developed a definition of small entities for radiotelephone
    (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were
    1,176 such companies in operation for at least one year at the end
    of 1992.[^191] According to SBA\'s definition, a small business
    radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^192] The Census Bureau also reported that 1,164 of those
    radiotelephone companies had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even
    if all of the remaining 12 companies had more than 1,500 employees,
    there would still be 1,164 radiotelephone companies that might
    qualify as small entities if they are independently owned and
    operated. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are
    not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to
    estimate with greater precision the number of radiotelephone
    carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business
    concerns under SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that
    there are fewer than 1,164 small entity radiotelephone companies
    that may be affected by the policies and rules proposed in this
    *Further Notice*.

    Below, we further describe and estimate the number of wireless small
    business concerns that may be affected by the rules we propose in
    the *Further Notice*.

    *Cellular Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
    developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular
    licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is
    the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone
    (wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity is a
    radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^193]
    According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone
    firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992
    had 1,000 or more employees.[^194] Therefore, even if all twelve of
    these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular
    carriers were small businesses under the SBA\'s definition. In
    addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, a
    cellular licensee may own several licenses. In addition, according
    to the most recent *Telecommunications Industry Revenue* data, 808
    carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either
    cellular service or Personal Communications Service (PCS) services,
    which are placed together in the data.[^195] We do not have data
    specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently
    owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are
    unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
    cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business
    concerns under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that
    there are fewer than 808 small cellular service carriers that may be
    affected by the rules adopted herein.

    *Broadband PCS Licensees.* The broadband PCS spectrum is divided
    into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission
    has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined \"small
    entity\'\' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross
    revenues of less than \$40 million in the three previous calendar
    years.[^196] For Block F, an additional classification for \"very
    small business\" was added and is defined as an entity that,
    together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not
    more than \$15 million for the preceding three calendar years.[^197]
    These regulations defining \"small entity\'\' in the context of
    broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA.[^198] No small
    businesses within the SBA-approved definition bid successfully for
    licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that
    qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93
    small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the
    1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.[^199] Based on this
    information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS
    licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93
    qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183
    small entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the
    Commission\'s auction rules.

*SMR Licensees.* The Commission awards bidding credits in auctions for
geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses to firms that had
revenues of no more than \$15 million in each of the three previous
calendar years.[^200] In the context of 900 MHz SMR, this regulation
defining \"small entity\" has been approved by the SBA; approval
concerning 800 MHz SMR is being sought. We do not know how many firms
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to
extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers
have annual revenues of no more than \$15 million. One firm has over
\$15 million in revenues. We assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that all
of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are
held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. For
geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band, there are 60 who
qualified as small entities. For the 800 MHz SMR\'s, 38 are small or
very small entities.

*220 MHz Radio Service \-- Phase I Licensees*. The 220 MHz service has
both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by
lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such
non‑nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently
authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such
incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such
licensees that are small businesses, we apply the definition under the
SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone Communications companies. This
definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company
employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^201] According to the Bureau of
the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such
firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.[^202]
Therefore, if this general ratio continues in 1999 in the context of
Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees
are small businesses under the SBA\'s definition.

*220 MHz Radio* S*ervice \-- Phase II Licensees*. The Phase II 220 MHz
service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the
220 MHz *Third Report and Order*, we adopted criteria for defining small
businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their
eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments.[^203] We have defined a small business as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, a very small business is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the
preceding three years.[^204] The SBA has approved these
definitions.[^205] An auction of Phase II licenses commenced on
September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.[^206] Nine hundred
and eight (908) licenses were auctioned in 3 different‑sized geographic
areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group
Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses
auctioned, 693 were sold. Companies claiming small business status won:
one of the Nationwide licenses, 67% of the Regional licenses, and 54% of
the EA licenses. As of January 22, 1999, the Commission announced that
it was prepared to grant 654 of the Phase II licenses won at
auction.[^207]

*Paging Licensees*. The Commission has adopted a two-tier definition of
small businesses in the context of auctioning licenses in the Common
Carrier Paging and exclusive Private Carrier Paging services. A small
business will be defined as either (1) an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more than \$3 million, or (2) an entity
that, together with affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of not more than
\$15 million. Because the SBA has not yet approved this definition for
paging services, we will utilize the SBA\'s definition applicable to
radiotelephone companies, *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
persons.[^208] At present, there are approximately 24,000 Private Paging
licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the
most recent *Telecommunications Industry Revenue* data, 172 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or
\"other mobile\" services, which are placed together in the data.[^209]
We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not
independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and
thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
number of paging carriers that would qualify as small business concerns
under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are
fewer than 172 small paging carriers that may be affected by the rules
adopted herein. We estimate that the majority of private and common
carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition.

*Narrowband PCS Licensees*. The Commission has auctioned nationwide and
regional licenses for narrowband PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30
regional licensees for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have
sufficient information to determine whether any of these licensees are
small businesses within the SBA-approved definition for radiotelephone
companies. Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have no more
than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number of
prospective narrowband licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of
this IRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities,
as that term is defined by the SBA.

*Rural Radiotelephone Service*. The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service.[^210] A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS).[^211] We will use
the SBA\'s definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, *i.e.*, an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^212] There are
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and
we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the
SBA\'s definition.

*Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service*. The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service.[^213] Accordingly, we will use the SBA\'s definition applicable
to radiotelephone companies, *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than
1,500 persons.[^214] There are approximately 100 licensees in the
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of
them qualify as small under the SBA definition.

*Fixed Microwave Services*. Microwave services include common
carrier,[^215] private‑operational fixed,[^216] and broadcast auxiliary
radio services.[^217] At present, there are approximately 22,015 common
carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational‑fixed licensees
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The
Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to
microwave services. For purposes of this IRFA, we will utilize the
SBA\'s definition applicable to radiotelephone companies \-- *i.e*., an
entity with no more than 1,500 persons.[^218] We estimate, for this
purpose, that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast
auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition for radiotelephone companies.

*Offshore Radiotelephone Service*. This service operates on several UHF
TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the
coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico.[^219] At
present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. We are
unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would
qualify as small under the SBA\'s definition for radiotelephone
communications.

*Wireless Communications Services*. This service can be used for fixed,
mobile, radiolocation and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The
Commission defined \"small business\" for the wireless communications
services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of \$40
million for each of the three preceding years, and a \"very small
business\" as an entity with average gross revenues of \$15 million for
each of the three preceding years. The Commission auctioned geographic
area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven
winning bidders that qualified as very small business entities, and one
that qualified as a small business entity. We conclude that the number
of geographic area WCS licensees affected includes these eight entities.

*Multipoint Distribution Systems (MDS)*. This service involves a variety
of transmitters, which are used to relay programming to the home or
office, similar to that provided by cable television systems.[^220] In
connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined small
businesses as entities that had annual average gross revenues for the
three preceding years not in excess of \$40 million.[^221] This
definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been
approved by the SBA.[^222] These stations were licensed prior to
implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.[^223] Licenses for new MDS facilities are now awarded to
auction winners in Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) and BTA-like areas.[^224]
The MDS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing
opportunities for 493 BTAs. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 meet the
definition of a small business. There are 2,050 MDS stations currently
licensed. Thus, we conclude that there are 1,634 MDS providers that are
small businesses as deemed by the SBA and the Commission\'s auction
rules.

D.  **Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
    Compliance Requirements**

The *Further Notice* does not propose any specific reporting,
recordkeeping or compliance requirements. However, we seek comment on
what, if any, such requirements we should impose if we adopt the
proposals set forth in the *Further Notice*.

E.  **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives: (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 or
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.

The *Further Notice* seeks broad comment on additional uses of bidding
credits to facilitate the provision of service to tribal and non-tribal
areas.[^225] The *Further Notice* does not make specific implementation
proposals, but rather seeks guidance from the industry on how to further
expand our bidding policies. We tentatively conclude that these
initiatives should not have a significant economic impact on small
carriers. Importantly, small business many combine any additional tribal
lands bidding credits with the small business bidding credits available
under our existing rules. Commenters are encouraged to discuss the
alternatives proposed in the *Further Notic*e, and specifically how to
minimize any significant economic impact on small entities.

F.  **Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
    Proposed Rules**

None.

**Separate Statement of**

**Commissioner Gloria Tristani**

Re: *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service: Promoting
Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas,
Including Tribal and Insular Areas*, 12th Report and Order and
Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45; *Extending Wireless
Telecommunications Services*, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 99-266.

I am proud to cast my vote in support of these items. Our decisions here
reflect this agency's commitment to improving access to telephone
service on tribal lands and, in turn, to opening the door to the
Information Age.

Section 254 of the Communications Act requires the Commission to assure
that all Americans have access to telecommunications services.[^226]
While 94 percent of Americans enjoy phone service today, just 47 percent
of Indian tribal households on tribal lands have telephones. The
policies we adopt today, including expanded Lifeline and Link Up
coverage, should boost subscribership on tribal lands and create
incentives for new infrastructure investment. We appropriately recognize
that wireless-based services offer unique solutions to increasing
telephone access in often-isolated and remote tribal lands. I strongly
support the decision to award bidding credits in upcoming auctions to
wireless carriers that commit to deploy facilities and offer service to
tribal areas that have telephone subscription rates below 70 percent.

I am also pleased that the Commission has established an expedited
process for handling petitions by carriers seeking designations as
Eligible Telecommunications Carriers on tribal lands. Excessive delay in
the designation of competing providers may hinder the development of
competition and the availability of service in many high-cost areas. By
committing to prompt resolution of pending petitions, we should speed
deployment of telecommunications infrastructure.

Finally, I am pleased that the Commission is reaffirming its commitment
to promote a government-to-government relationship with tribal nations
and to recognize that tribal nations have rights to set their own
communications priorities and goals. To that end, I look forward to the
training session the Commission will hold this September to assist
tribal nations in making decisions about telecommunications.[^227]

Our actions today, and our commitment to continue to act in the future,
will help fulfill the mandate of Congress and, I believe, our moral
obligation to ensure that all Americans enjoy the benefits of the
Information Age.

[^1]: In this *Report and Order*, the term "tribal lands" shall mean
    "reservation" as defined by the Bureau Of Indian Affairs (BIA):

    \"Reservation\" means any federally recognized Indian tribe\'s
    reservation, Pueblo, or Colony, including former reservations in
    Oklahoma, Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska
    Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), and Indian allotments.

    25 C.F.R. § 20.1(v).

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).

[^3]: The term "telephone penetration rate" refers to the actual
    percentage of households that subscribe to telephone service. *See*
    Telephone Penetration by Income by State at 1, available at
    \<www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common\_
    Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/recent.html\> (rel. March
    2000)(Telephone Penetration Report).

[^4]: Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands,
    *Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 99-266, 14 FCC Rcd.
    13679 (1999) (*Notice*).

[^5]: Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service: Promoting
    Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas,
    Including Tribal and Insular Areas, *Report and Order*, CC Docket
    No. 96-45, FCC 00-208 (adopted June 8, 2000, released June 30,
    2000).

[^6]: Statement of Policy on Establishing a Government-to-Government
    Relationship with Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, FCC 00-207
    (adopted June 8, 2000, released June 23, 2000).

[^7]: *Notice* ¶ 4. Indian tribes live in some of the most isolated
    areas of the United States, locations that telecommunications
    carriers find especially expensive to serve. *See* U.S. Congress,
    Office of Technology Assessment, Telecommunications Technology and
    Native Americans: Opportunities and Challenges at 20 (1995).

[^8]: *Notice* ¶ 16.

[^9]: *Id.* ¶¶ 43-58.

[^10]: *Id.* ¶ 1.

[^11]: Comments, replies and *ex parte* submissions are listed in
    Appendix A.

[^12]: Bureau of the Census, Statistical Brief, *Housing of American
    Indians on Reservations \-- Equipment and Fuels*, SB/95-11, April
    1995 at 2 (citing 1990 census data). *See also* Assessment of
    Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities, Prepared by the
    College of Engineering, New Mexico State University at 16 (Final
    Report, June 1999) (New Mexico State University Study).

[^13]: *Id*.

[^14]: *Id*. *See* New Mexico State University Study at 17, Table 2.6.

[^15]: Telephone Penetration Report, Table 1.

[^16]: *Id*. at 11, Chart I-3, citing December 1998 Current Population
    Survey.

[^17]: Bureau of the Census, Statistical Brief, *Housing of American
    Indians on Reservations \-- Equipment and Fuels*, SB/95-11, April
    1995 at 2 (citing 1990 census data).

[^18]: In 1990, the unemployment rate among individuals living on tribal
    lands was approximately 25.6 percent. 1990 Census, CP‑2‑1 at Tables
    175 & 176.

[^19]: *See* Letter from David L. Sieradzki, Counsel for Western
    Wireless, Inc., to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, dated July
    15, 1998, at 18-20.

[^20]: *See, e.g.*, the Dandin Group Comments at ii.

[^21]: *See* Establishment of Policies and Service Rules For the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket No. 99-81, RM-9328,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 4843, 4886 (1999) (*2
    GHz Notice*).

[^22]: *Id.*

[^23]: *Notice* ¶ 21.

[^24]: *Id.*

[^25]: U.S. SBA Comments at 2-3; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Comments at
    17; Titan Wireless Comments at 6; NTCA Comments at 12; Dr. Joseph
    Gitlin et al. Comments at 4; and Carl Artman Comments at 7.

[^26]: Motorola et al. Comments at 8.

[^27]: RTG Comments at 9.

[^28]: We define "federally-recognized tribal government" as those
    Indian entities eligible to receive services from the Department of
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. *See* Indian Entities Recognized
    and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, 65 Fed. Reg. 13298 (March 13, 2000).

[^29]: *White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker*, 448 U.S. 136, 140
    (1980), quoting *United States v. Mazurie*, 419 U.S. 544, 557
    (1975). Under the tribal sovereignty doctrine, "Indian tribes are
    unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both
    their members and their territory," *McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax
    Comm'n*, 441 U.S. 164, 173 (1973), quoting *United States v.
    Kagama*, 118 U.S. 375, 381-382 (1886), and have retained "a
    semi-independent position . . . not as States, not as nations, . . .
    but as a separate people with the power of regulating their internal
    and social relations . . . ." *Id.*

[^30]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j)(3) & (4).

[^31]: *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) (authorizing the Commission to
    \"perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and
    issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be
    necessary in the execution of its functions\") and 47 U.S.C. §
    303(r) (authorizing the Commission to \"\[m\]ake such rules and
    regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not
    inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the
    provisions of this Act\").

[^32]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^33]: *Id.* § 309(j)(3)(A).

[^34]: *Id.* § 309(j)(3)(D).

[^35]: H.R. Rep. No. 111, 103^rd^ Cong., 1^st^ Sess. 1993, at 255.

[^36]: 47 U.S.C. § 157 n.

[^37]: H.R. Rep. No. 458, 104th Cong., 2^nd^ Sess. 1996, at 210.

[^38]: *Id.*, § 309(j)(4)(B).

[^39]: NTCA Comments at 11-12.

[^40]: For example, in the two states with the lowest average statewide
    penetration rates, New Mexico (86.7%) and Mississippi (87.2%), only
    two of the states' 115 counties, McKinley County, New Mexico (which
    is largely comprised of tribal land) and Tunica County, Mississippi,
    had penetration rates below 70%. *See* 1990 U.S. Census Data,
    Database C90STF3A State---County, Tenure by Telephone in Housing
    Unit \<http.venus.census.gov/cdrom/100kup/959797808 and New Mexico,
    1959881091\>.

[^41]: *See* Section IV.A., *infra*.

[^42]: U.S. SBA Comments at 2-3.

[^43]: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Comments at 17-18.

[^44]: RTG Comments at 9.

[^45]: Motorola Comments at 8

[^46]: Titan Wireless Comments at 6.

[^47]: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Comments at 17-18.

[^48]: For example, if a winning bidder has a total of 300 square miles
    of qualifying tribal lands within its license area, it may receive a
    maximum tribal land bidding credit of \$450,000 (\$300,000 + (\$1500
    \*100)).

[^49]: For example, if a winning bidder has a total of 300 square miles
    of qualifying tribal land within its license area, and the gross bid
    amount for its license is \$800,000, the winning bidder could
    receive a maximum credit of \$400,000 (50% cap triggered). However,
    if the gross bid amount for the license is \$1.5 million, the
    winning bidder could receive a credit of \$450,000 (\$500,000 cap is
    not triggered).

[^50]: Industry reports indicate that a 200-foot tower could cost
    \$262,000 to construct. This figure includes land, zoning, utility,
    tower construction, personnel, enclosure construction,
    administrative and insurance costs. *See* Fryer's Market Analysis
    '99, at 32 (1999). In addition, we estimate that average equipment
    costs, including receiving, transmitting, and locating antennas,
    coaxial cable and a microwave dish, would approximate \$40,000.

[^51]: See, for example, our effective radiated power limits for
    cellular, 47 C.F.R. §22.913, and power limits for broadband PCS, 47
    C.F.R. §24.232.

[^52]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.925.

[^53]: This does not preclude bidders from entering into discussions
    with tribal authorities prior to the commencement of the auction.
    Such discussions are also permissible during the auction unless the
    parties are eligible to bid against one another and have not
    disclosed a pre-auction agreement in accordance with the auction
    anti-collusion rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2105(c).

[^54]: The following examples demonstrate how the tribal land bidding
    credits are calculated and applied. In both instances, assume the
    gross high bid at the auction was \$3 million and that the applicant
    was granted a 25% tribal land bidding credit. Example 1: Applicant
    is not entitled to a small business bidding credit. The down payment
    due after the close of the auction would be \$600,000 (20% of the
    \$3 million gross high bid.) The final net adjusted bid amount
    payment, prior to the application of the tribal land bidding credit,
    would be \$2,400,000. The actual final net adjusted bid payment is
    \$1,650,000 calculated as follows: the gross high bid of \$3
    million, less the down payment of \$600,000 and less the tribal
    bidding credit of \$750,000 (25% times the gross high bid of \$3
    million). Example 2: Applicant is entitled to a small business
    bidding credit of 25% and a tribal land bidding credit of 25%. The
    gross high bid is \$3 million and the net high bid after the 25%
    small business bidding credit is \$2,250,000. The down payment due
    after the close of the auction is \$450,000 (20% of the \$2,250,000
    net high bid.) The final net adjusted bid amount, prior to the
    application of the tribal land bidding credit, would be \$1,800,000.
    The actual final net adjusted bid amount is \$1,050,000 calculated
    as follows: the net high bid of \$2,250,000, less the down payment
    of \$450,000 and less the tribal bidding credit of \$750,000 (25%
    times the gross high bid of \$3 million).

[^55]: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Comments at 18.

[^56]: Titan Wireless Comments at 7.

[^57]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).

[^58]: Population figures should be based on the most recent available
    United States Census Data.

[^59]: We note that tribal authorities may negotiate with licensees for
    a higher coverage requirement and/or a more expedited buildout
    period. Any such agreement will not alter the buildout and coverage
    conditions applicable to the bidding credit, however.

[^60]: In the event a licensee transfers or assigns the license pursuant
    to Section 1.2111 of our rules, the transferee or assignee must
    satisfy the foregoing performance requirements. 47 C.F.R. § 1.2112.

[^61]: The interest will be based on the rate for ten year U.S. treasury
    obligations applicable on the date the license is granted.

[^62]: The auditor is required to conduct a "compliance attestation" for
    this certification. The Commission's rules already require
    independent auditors to use generally accepted auditing standards
    (GAAS) for conducting audits of an incumbent LEC's compliance with
    our accounting safeguards. 47 C.F.R. § 64.904(a).

[^63]: The independent auditor will conduct this examination using the
    "examination engagement" method. *See* American Inst. Of Certified
    Pub. Accountants, COMPLIANCE ATTESTATION, AT § 500.27; ATTESTATION
    ENGAGEMENTS, AT § 100.53 (noting that an examination engagement is
    used to reduce the attestation risk to a low level).

[^64]: *Notice* ¶¶ 17-40. We also sought comment on whether to lift
    transfer restrictions on designated entities. We do not address this
    issue in this Order.

[^65]: Site-based licenses typically come with a requirement to
    construct and commence operations by a date certain. For example,
    maritime public fixed stations must begin providing service within
    one year. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.49(b).

    Geographic area licenses for mobile services require that service be
    provided to a certain percentage of the population or of the
    geographic area encompassed by the license within a specified time.
    For example, 30 MHz PCS licensees must make service available to
    one-third of the population in their licensed area within five years
    and two-thirds of the population in their licensed areas within ten
    years. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 24.203.

    Some services have a requirement that "substantial service" be
    provided by a date certain. For example, LMDS carriers must offer
    substantial service within 10 years. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.1011(a).
    Substantial service is defined as "service which is sound, favorable
    and substantially above a level of mediocre service which might just
    minimally warrant renewal." *Id.*

[^66]: *Notice* ¶ 24.

[^67]: Salt-River Pima-Maricopa Comments at 10-11, U.S. Cellular Corp.
    Comments at 5, PCIA Comments at 5, Western Wireless Comments at 6,
    Roger L. Scheer Comments at 2, Dobson Comm. Corp. Comments at 6, and
    Carl Artman Comments at 2-3.

[^68]: *Notice* ¶ 17.

[^69]: BETRS is a two-way channel wireless service used to provide basic
    exchange service to remote rural areas of the country. Basic
    Exchange Telecommunications Radio Service*,* *Report and Order*, CC
    Docket No. 86-495, 3 FCC Rcd 214 (1988). *See also* 47 C.F.R. §§
    22.99, 22.725 & 22.727.

[^70]: *Notice* ¶ 17.

[^71]: *Id.* ¶ 20.

[^72]: *Id.* ¶ 17.

[^73]: NTCA Comments at 9-10, PCIA Comments at 4-5, Cook Inlet Region
    Comments at 3-4, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Comments at 10, U.S.
    Cellular Corp. Comments at 3-4, Dobson Comm. Corp. Comments at 6,
    Roger L. Scheer Comments at 2, Carl Artman Comments at 2.

[^74]: *See, e.g.*, SDITC Reply Comments at 8.

[^75]: *Id*. at 8-9. SDITC further suggests several measures the
    Commission could adopt to protect adjacent systems from
    interference: (1) establish a "safe harbor" or clear technical
    operating parameters within which systems could operate at higher
    power/antenna height without being considered sources of
    interference; (2) require letters of concurrence from adjacent
    licensees subject to potential interference, if the tribal licensee
    wishes to exceed safe harbor guidelines; and/or (3) require tribal
    applicants to show that there would be no overlap of a defined
    "service area contour," and hence no interference, with neighboring
    systems. SDITC Reply Comments at 8. We decline to adopt these
    measures at this time, but may consider these factors in addressing
    waivers of our operational rules.

[^76]: CTIA, for instance, cautions that relaxing height/power
    restrictions would not reduce the costs of implementing broadband
    PCS because PCS handsets operate only at power levels of .6W or
    lower, and hence are unable to communicate with base stations over
    longer distances. CTIA Comments, at 6-7.

[^77]: SIA Comments at 4.

[^78]: NTCA Comments at 12-13; Tohono O'Odham Utility Authority Comments
    at 2-5; RTG Comments at 4-5; San Carlos Apache Telecom Utility Inc.
    Comments at 4; SDITC Reply Comments at 6.

[^79]: Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate future Development of Paging Systems, *Second Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No.
    96-18, 12 FCC Rcd 2732 (1997).

[^80]: SDITC Reply Comments at 7.

[^81]: Education Parties Comments at 11. *See also* Dandin Group
    Comments at 12**.**

[^82]: In the Matter of Revision of Part 15 of the Commission\'s Rules
    Regarding Ultra-wideband Transmission Systems, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, ET Docket No. 98-153, FCC 00-163 (adopted May 10, 2000,
    rel. May 11, 2000).

[^83]: Comments in this proceeding will be incorporated into ET Docket
    No. 98-153 for this purpose.

[^84]: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
    Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and
    Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706
    of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, *Report*, CC Docket No.
    98-146, 14 FCC Rcd 2398 (February 2, 1999) (*Section 706 Report*).

[^85]: David R. Hughes Comments at 2.

[^86]: *Notice* ¶ 28.

[^87]: *Id.* ¶ 29.

[^88]: *Id.* ¶ 33.

[^89]: *See, e.g*.*,* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.201-90.219.

[^90]: *Notice* ¶ 54.

[^91]: Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 3893, 4886-87 ¶ 95 (1999).

[^92]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish rules and
    Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite Service in the
    1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency Bands, *Report and Order*, 9
    FCC Rcd 5936, 5940 ¶ 3 (1994) (*Big LEO Report and Order).*

[^93]: Letter to M. Roman Salas, FCC, from R. Gerard Salemme, Eagle
    River Investments, L.L.C. and Cheryl A. Tritt, Counsel for ICO
    Global Communications, dated March 17, 2000.

[^94]: NTCA Comments at 9-10, PCIA Comments at 4-5, Cook Inlet Region
    Comments at 3-4, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Comments at 10, U.S.
    Cellular Corp. Comments at 3-4, Dobson Comm. Corp. Comments at 6,
    Roger L. Scheer Comments at 2, Carl Artman Comments at 2.

[^95]: Celsat Comments at 5-7 (supports conditioning assignment or
    reassignment of 2 GHz MSS spectrum on service to tribal areas);
    Boeing Comments at 2, 6-8 (additional incentives are unnecessary and
    could hamper or delay new satellite services); Air Touch Comments at
    3-4 (new incentives could distort spectrum policy), CCI
    International Comments at 3-4 (existing incentives are sufficient).

[^96]: *See* Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket No. 99-81, RM-9328,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 4843 (1999).

[^97]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.212(d).

[^98]: Onsat Comments at 10-14.

[^99]: Onsat Petition for Declaratory Order, Waiver and Request for
    Expedited Action, File No. SAT-PDR-19990910-00091, Public Notice,
    report No. SAT-00026 (rel. Sept. 23, 1999).

[^100]: Panamsat is doubtful that such services can be made affordable
    to reservation residents. Panamsat Corp. Comments at 2-3.

[^101]: Hughes Comments at 3-5.

[^102]: See Redesignation of the 17.7‑19.7 GHz Frequency Band, Blanket
    Licensing of Satellite Earth Stations in the 17.7‑20.2 GHz and
    27.5‑30.0 GHz Frequency Bands, and the Allocation of Additional
    Spectrum in the 17.3‑17.8 GHz and 24.75‑25.25 GHz Frequency Bands
    for Broadcast Satellite‑Service Use, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 98‑172, 13 FCC Rcd 19923 (1998) (18 GHz
    NPRM).

[^103]: Kira A. Mirski Comments at 2-4.

[^104]: *See* In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules with
    Regard to the 3650‑3700 MHz Government Transfer Band, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd. 1295 (1988).

[^105]: For the Spaceway proposal see Redesignation of the 17.7‑19.7 GHz
    Frequency Band, Blanket Licensing of Satellite Earth Stations in the
    17.7‑20.2 GHz and 27.5‑30.0 GHz Frequency Bands, and the Allocation
    of Additional Spectrum in the 17.3‑17.8 GHz and 24.75‑25.25 GHz
    Frequency Bands for Broadcast Satellite‑Service Use, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 98‑172, 13 FCC Rcd 19923 (1998).
    For the SkyBridge proposal, see Application of SkyBridge L.L.C. for
    Authority to Launch and Operate the SkyBridge System, File No.
    48-SAT-p/LA-97, February 28, 1997; Amendment, File No.
    89-SAT-AMEND-97, July 3, 1997; Amendment, File No.
    SAT-AMD-19980630-00056, 1998; Amendment, File No.
    SAT-AMD-19990108-00004, January 8, 1999. The application as amended,
    was placed on public notice on March 23, 1999. Report No. SAT-00013.

[^106]: *Notice* ¶ 43.

[^107]: Bell Atlantic Mobile Comments at 9-10. Bell Atlantic Mobile adds
    that attempting to find discrete blocks of spectrum that would be
    available for use only on Indian lands could seriously complicate
    successful action in the future proceeding to identify new
    frequencies for third-generation mobile services.

[^108]: U.S. Cellular Corp. Comments at 6-7, Western Wireless Comments
    at 8-9 and Dobson Comm. Corp. at 12-13.

[^109]: U.S. Cellular Corp. Comments at 6-7.

[^110]: *Notice* ¶ 44.

[^111]: *Id.* ¶ 25.

[^112]: U.S. Cellular Corp. Comments at 5, Western Wireless Comments at
    9, NTIA Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^113]: NTIA Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^114]: Dobson Comm. Corp. Comments at 12-13.

[^115]: Dandin Group Reply Comments at 5.

[^116]: 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.

[^117]: *Notice* ¶ 47.

[^118]: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Comments at 17, Carl Artman Comments at
    7, Linda Riley Ex Parte, October 6, 1999.

[^119]: NTCA Comments at 13, Tohono O'Odham Utility Authority Comments
    at 3-5, RTG Comments at 5-7.

[^120]: For example, according to 1990 U.S. Census Data, four counties
    in New Mexico, Cibola County, Guadalupe County, Rio Arriba County,
    and San Juan County, have penetration levels between 70 and 78
    percent.

[^121]: To prevent a double recovery, licensees who obtained a bidding
    credit under the procedures established in the *Report & Order*
    could not obtain a second credit for the same deployment under the
    alternative proposed here.

[^122]: 47 U.S.C. § 151. Section 309(j)(3) directs the Commission to
    promote the purposes specified in Section 1 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
    151.

[^123]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A).

[^124]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(D).

[^125]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 157 (directing the Commission to "encourage
    the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced
    telecommunications capability to all Americans . . . by utilizing .
    . . regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure
    investment.").

[^126]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^127]: Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 99-266 (rel. Aug. 18,
    1999).

[^128]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^129]: SBA Comments at 7-8.

[^130]: *Id.* at 7.

[^131]: *Id.* at 2, 3-6.

[^132]: SBA Comments at 7.

[^133]: *See Report and Order* ¶ 30.

[^134]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^135]: *Id.* § 601(6).

[^136]: 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.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^137]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^138]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^139]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^140]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^141]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, \"1992 Census of
    Governments.\"

[^142]: *Id.*

[^143]: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
    *1992 Census of Transportation*, Communications, and Utilities:
    Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1‑123 (1995) (\"1992
    Census\").

[^144]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4812.

[^145]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^146]: *1992 Census, Series UC92-S-1*, at Table 5, SIC code 4812.

[^147]: *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table 19.3 (March 2000).

[^148]: *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission\'s Rules \--
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order*, FCC 96-278, WT Docket No.
    96-59, paras. 57- 60 (released Jun. 24, 1996), 61 FR 33859 (Jul. 1,
    1996); *see also* 47 CFR 24.720(b).

[^149]: *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission\'s Rules \--
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order*, FCC 96-278, WT Docket No.
    96-59, para. 60 (1996), 61 FR 33859 (Jul. 1, 1996).

[^150]: *See*, *e.g.*, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act \-- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    *Fifth Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5581-84 (1994).

[^151]: FCC News, *Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes*, No.
    71744 (released Jan. 14, 1997).

[^152]: 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1).

[^153]: 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
    4812.

[^154]: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992
    Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, UC92‑S‑1,
    Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment
    Size of Firms; 1992, SIC code 4812 (issued May 1995).

[^155]: 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068‑70, at
    paras. 291‑ 295 (1997).

[^156]: 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11068‑69, para.
    291.

[^157]: *See* Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to D.
    Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6,
    1998).

[^158]: *See generally* Public Notice, \"220 MHz Service Auction
    Closes,\" Report No. WT 98‑36 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. Oct. 23,
    1998).

[^159]: Public Notice, \"FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase
    II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made,\" Report No.
    AUC-18-H, DA No. 99-229 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. Jan. 22, 1999).

[^160]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^161]: *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table 19.3 (February 19, 1999).

[^162]: The service is defined in § 22.99 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
    CFR 22.99.

[^163]: BETRS is defined in §§ 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commission\'s
    Rules, 47 CFR 22.757 and 22.759.

[^164]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^165]: The service is defined in § 22.99 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
    CFR 22.99.

[^166]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^167]: 47 CFR 101 *et seq*. (formerly, part 21 of the Commission\'s
    Rules).

[^168]: Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission\'s
    rules can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave services. *See* 47
    CFR parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called
    operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public
    fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed
    station, and only for communications related to the licensee\'s
    commercial, industrial, or safety operations.

[^169]: Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by part 74 of Title 47
    of the Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 CFR 74 *et seq*. Available to
    licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network
    entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used for
    relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the
    transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
    auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which
    relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.

[^170]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 4812.

[^171]: This service is governed by subpart I of part 22 of the
    Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 CFR 22.1001 through 22.1037.

[^172]: For purposes of this item, MDS includes both the single channel
    Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and the Multichannel
    Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS).

[^173]: 47 CFR 1.2110 (a)(1).

[^174]: [Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission\'s Rules with
    Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service
    and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive
    Bidding,]{.underline} 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995), 60 FR 36524 (Jul. 17,
    1995).

[^175]: 47 U.S.C. 309(j).

[^176]: [Id]{.underline}. A Basic Trading Area (BTA) is the geographic
    area by which the Multipoint Distribution Service is licensed.
    [See]{.underline} Rand McNally [1992 Commercial Atlas and Marketing
    Guide]{.underline}, 123rd Edition, pp. 36-39.

[^177]: The total size of the qualifying tribal lands, however, is a
    significant factor in determining the amount of the available
    credit. *See* Section III.B.4.

[^178]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^179]: Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands,
    *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 99-266, FCC
    00-209 (adopted June 8, 2000).

[^180]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^181]: *See* *id.*

[^182]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^183]: *Id.* at § 601(6).

[^184]: 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.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^185]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^186]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^187]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^188]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^189]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, \"1992 Census of
    Governments.\"

[^190]: *Id.*

[^191]: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
    *1992 Census of Transportation*, Communications, and Utilities:
    Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1‑123 (1995) (\"1992
    Census\").

[^192]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4812.

[^193]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^194]: *1992 Census, Series UC92-S-1*, at Table 5, SIC code 4812.

[^195]: *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table 19.3 (March 2000).

[^196]: *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission\'s Rules \--
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order*, FCC 96-278, WT Docket No.
    96-59, paras. 57- 60 (released Jun. 24, 1996), 61 FR 33859 (Jul. 1,
    1996); *see also* 47 CFR 24.720(b).

[^197]: *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission\'s Rules \--
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order*, FCC 96-278, WT Docket No.
    96-59, para. 60 (1996), 61 FR 33859 (Jul. 1, 1996).

[^198]: *See, e.g.,* Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act \-- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    *Fifth Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5581-84 (1994).

[^199]: FCC News, *Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes*, No.
    71744 (released Jan. 14, 1997).

[^200]: 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1).

[^201]: 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
    4812.

[^202]: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992
    Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, UC92‑S‑1,
    Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment
    Size of Firms; 1992, SIC code 4812 (issued May 1995).

[^203]: 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068‑70, at
    paras. 291‑ 295 (1997).

[^204]: 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11068‑69, para.
    291.

[^205]: *See* Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to D.
    Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6,
    1998).

[^206]: *See generally* Public Notice, \"220 MHz Service Auction
    Closes,\" Report No. WT 98‑36 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. Oct. 23,
    1998).

[^207]: Public Notice, \"FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase
    II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made,\" Report No.
    AUC-18-H, DA No. 99-229 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. Jan. 22, 1999).

[^208]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^209]: *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table 19.3 (February 19, 1999).

[^210]: The service is defined in § 22.99 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
    CFR 22.99.

[^211]: BETRS is defined in §§ 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commission\'s
    Rules, 47 CFR 22.757 and 22.759.

[^212]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^213]: The service is defined in § 22.99 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
    CFR 22.99.

[^214]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^215]: 47 CFR 101 *et seq*. (formerly, part 21 of the Commission\'s
    Rules).

[^216]: Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission\'s
    rules can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave services. *See* 47
    CFR parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called
    operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public
    fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed
    station, and only for communications related to the licensee\'s
    commercial, industrial, or safety operations.

[^217]: Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by part 74 of Title 47
    of the Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 CFR 74 *et seq*. Available to
    licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network
    entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used for
    relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the
    transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
    auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which
    relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.

[^218]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 4812.

[^219]: This service is governed by subpart I of part 22 of the
    Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 CFR 22.1001 through 22.1037.

[^220]: For purposes of this item, MDS includes both the single channel
    Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and the Multichannel
    Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS).

[^221]: 47 CFR 1.2110 (a)(1).

[^222]: *Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission\'s Rules with
    Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service
    and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive
    Bidding*[,]{.underline} 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995), 60 FR 36524 (Jul.
    17, 1995).

[^223]: 47 U.S.C. 309(j).

[^224]: *Id.* A Basic Trading Area (BTA) is the geographic area by which
    the Multipoint Distribution Service is licensed. *See* Rand McNally
    *1992 Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide*, 123rd Edition, pp.
    36-39.

[^225]: *See Further Notice* ¶¶ 23-25*.*

[^226]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(3).

[^227]: *See* "FCC Announces the Indian Telecom Training Initiative to
    be Held September 25-28, 2000" (rel. Apr. 24, 2000)
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/News_Releases/2000/nrwl0012.doc\>.