Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15665 

the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and also are 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in those 

buildings. 

Correction 

In the proposed rule published at 76 

FR 46701, in the August 3, 2011, issue 

of the Federal Register, FEMA 

published a table under the authority of 

44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ‘‘City of 

Cadiz, Kentucky’’ addressed the 

flooding sources Little River (backwater 

effects from Lake Barkley) and Little 

River Tributary 1 (backwater effects 

from Lake Barkley). That table 

contained inaccurate information as to 

the location of referenced elevation, 

effective and modified elevation in feet, 

and/or communities affected for those 

flooding sources. 

In this notice, FEMA is publishing a 

table containing the accurate 

information, to address these prior 

errors. The information provided below 

should be used in lieu of that previously 

published for the City of Cadiz, 

Kentucky. 

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location ** 

* Elevation in feet 

(NGVD) 

+ Elevation in feet 

(NAVD) 

# Depth in feet above 

ground 

∧Elevation in meters 

(MSL) 

Existing Modified 

City of Cadiz, Kentucky 

Kentucky ................ City of Cadiz .......... Little River (backwater effects from Lake Barkley).Approximately 3.7 miles upstream of the 

Lake Barkley confluence to approximately 4.5 miles upstream of the Lake 

Barkley confluence.

None +375 

Kentucky ................ City of Cadiz .......... Little River Tributary 1 

(backwater effects from 

Lake Barkley).

Approximately 500 feet upstream of the 

Little River confluence to approximately 

1,678 feet upstream of the Little River 

confluence.

None +375 

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. 

+ North American Vertical Datum. 

# Depth in feet above ground. 

∧ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter. 

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for 

exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. 

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. 

ADDRESSES 

City of Cadiz 

Maps are available for inspection at 63 Main Street, Cadiz, KY 42211. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: March 1, 2012. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6356 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 22 

[WT Docket No. 12–40; RM–11510; FCC 12– 

20] 

Cellular Service, Including Changes in 

Licensing of Unserved Area; Interim 

Restrictions and Procedures for 

Cellular Service Applications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; interim 

procedures. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes to amend the 

rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service (Cellular 

Service). In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 

proposes to transition the Cellular 

Service from a site-based licensing 

model to a geographic-based model by 

offering an ‘‘overlay’’ license for every 

Cellular Market Area (CMA) and 

corresponding channel block (Block A 

or Block B), in two stages, via auction. 

The Overlay Licensees would be 

obligated to protect existing licensees’ 

Cellular operations from harmful 

interference. The NPRM also includes 

proposals to update various other 

Cellular Service rules. The Commission 

seeks comment on all its proposals as 

well as on alternative proposals. The 

companion Order imposes certain 

interim procedures, including a freeze 

on the filing of certain Cellular 

applications in certain markets and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15666 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

other interim procedures regarding 

currently pending applications to help 

ensure an orderly and efficient 

rulemaking proceeding while the 

Commission considers changes to the 

Cellular Service rules. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

May 15, 2012, and reply comments are 

due on or before June 14, 2012. Written 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act proposed information collection 

requirements must be submitted by the 

public, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), and other interested 

parties on or before May 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Parties may submit 

comments to the Secretary of the 

Federal Communications Commission, 

identified by WT Docket No. 12–40; 

FCC No. 12–20, by any of the following 

methods: 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet: 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

D People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

In addition to filing comments with the 

Secretary, a copy of any comments on 

the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov 

and to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via 

email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. For detailed 

instructions for submitting comments 

and additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nina Shafran, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility 

Division, at 202–418–2781 or by email 

to Nina.Shafran@fcc.gov. For additional 

information concerning Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, send an email to 

PRA@fcc.gov or contact Judith B. 

Herman at (202) 418–0214. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and Order (NPRM 

and Order) in WT Docket No. 12–40, 

FCC 12–20, adopted and released on 

February 15, 2012. The full text of the 

NPRM and Order, including all 

Appendices, is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 

12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

The complete text may be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of the NPRM and Order may be 

downloaded at: http:// 

hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 

attachmatch/FCC-12-20A1.doc. In 

addition, the complete text of the NPRM 

and Order as well as links to Cellular 

Service coverage maps and interactive 

map files are available at: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-40. 

Alternative formats are available to 

persons with disabilities by sending an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

This document contains potential 

new and modified information 

collection requirements. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and OMB to 

comment on the potential information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

I. Introduction 

1. Since its inception roughly 30 years 

ago, the Cellular Service has been 

instrumental in transforming the 

communications landscape by making 

mobile services broadly available to the 

American public. As discussed in 

Section III below, based on our data, 

only limited area not yet licensed 

(Unserved Area) remains outside of 

Alaska and certain rural markets in the 

western United States. At this advanced 

stage of the Cellular Service, the sitebased aspect of this licensing model is 

yielding diminished returns. The 

significant administrative burdens on 

licensees associated with the site-based 

model no longer appear to be 

outweighed by the public benefits 

produced. In addition, the Cellular 

Service stands apart from virtually all 

other commercial wireless services by 

not yet transitioning to a geographicbased model, which offers greater 

flexibility and reduced regulatory 

requirements. Thus, consistent with its 

regulatory reform agenda, the 

Commission proposes to revise the 

Cellular licensing regime to a 

geographic-based approach, in two 

stages, through competitive bidding, as 

explained in detail in Section III, below. 

2. The Commission also proposes to 

update the Cellular Service rules, 

including, for example, streamlining 

application requirements and deleting 

certain data collection requirements that 

may no longer be necessary going 

forward. Consistent with other flexibly 

licensed commercial wireless services, 

the Commission proposes to establish a 

signal field strength limit. Finally, we 

seek comment on whether to move the 

part 22 Cellular rules, as well as the part 

24 rules, to part 27. We seek comment 

on all aspects of our proposals, and on 

the alternative transition proposals 

discussed in the NPRM, including those 

of CTIA—The Wireless Association 

(CTIA), as set forth in its initial petition 

for rulemaking filed in February 2008, 

and its revised proposal submitted in 

September 2010, and those of the 

National Telecommunications 

Cooperative Association (NTCA), The 

Rural Telecommunications Group 

(RTG), and others on the record. (All 

commenters are listed in Appendix A of 

the NPRM and Order.) 

II. Background 

3. Brief History of Cellular Service 

Licensing. The Commission adopted 

initial rules governing allocation of 

spectrum for commercial Cellular 

service, including the establishment of 

two channel blocks (Blocks A and B), in 

1981. The Commission established in 

phases 734 Cellular Market Areas 

(CMAs) for the purpose of issuing 

licenses to two Cellular providers per 

market (herein, ‘‘Original System 

Licensees’’ (OSLs)), one on each Block, 

without competitive bidding. Every OSL 

was given the exclusive right, for a fiveyear period from the date of grant of the 

initial construction authorization for 

that CMA Block, to build out anywhere 

within the CMA boundary. The area 

timely built out during that five-year 

period became the licensee’s initial 

Cellular Geographic Service Area 

(CGSA), the licensed area entitled to 

protection from harmful interference, 

while any area not built out by the fiveyear mark was automatically 

relinquished for re-licensing as 

Unserved Area on a site-by-site basis by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15667 

the Commission. Under site-based 

licensing, any interested party may 

request authorization to construct at a 

specific transmitter location (or multiple 

locations) in Unserved Area, and may 

only construct authorized transmitters. 

For all CMA Blocks except one 

(Chambers, Texas, discussed in detail 

below), licenses have been issued to 

OSLs and the initial five-year periods 

have expired. 

4. The Commission established two 

phases for applicants seeking to provide 

Cellular service in Unserved Area for 

each CMA Block: Phase I and Phase II. 

As of late 2007, the Phase I filing 

window had ended in all licensed 

Blocks. Under current rules, Phase II 

lasts indefinitely. Phase II applications 

specify the area to be licensed and are 

subject to a 30-day public comment 

period during which petitions to deny 

and mutually exclusive applications 

may be filed. In the event that mutually 

exclusive applications are filed for a 

particular Unserved Area, they are 

resolved through competitive bidding in 

closed auctions. Licenses granted in 

Phase II are subject to a one-year 

construction deadline for the authorized 

site and the licensee must be providing 

service to subscribers by the end of the 

one-year period; failure to build out 

results in automatic termination of the 

authorization for that site, and the 

Unserved Area again is subject to the 

filing of site-based applications. 

5. Summary of Industry Proposals on 

the Record. In October 2008, CTIA filed 

a Petition requesting that the 

Commission change Cellular licensing 

from a site-based regime to a geographic 

area-based regime in all markets and to 

assign to incumbents, without using 

competitive bidding, all remaining 

Unserved Area. The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) 

subsequently issued a Public Notice 

seeking comment on CTIA’s Petition. 

(See 24 FCC Rcd 27 (WTB 2009).) Ten 

parties filed comments, six (including 

CTIA) filed reply comments, and two 

(including CTIA) filed ex parte letters. 

In September 2010, CTIA submitted a 

revised proposal (CTIA Revised Plan) 

which it asserts ‘‘takes into account the 

objectives and concerns raised by 

commenters in this proceeding.’’ RTG 

filed comments specifically addressing 

the CTIA Revised Plan. In May 2011, 

CTIA, GCI Communication Corp. (GCI), 

NTCA, and RTG met with Commission 

staff to express their additional views 

regarding transition approaches for 

Cellular licensing and, accordingly, 

filed ex parte letters. Subsequently, in 

February 2012, CTIA, AT&T, Inc. 

(AT&T) and Verizon Wireless met with 

Commission staff to express their 

additional views regarding transition 

approaches for Cellular licensing and 

CTIA filed ex parte letters accordingly. 

6. In its Revised Plan, CTIA appears 

to be proposing that the Commission 

change the Cellular Service to 

geographic area-based licensing and 

terminate site-based access to Unserved 

Area on a rolling basis, as CMA Blocks 

become ‘‘Fully Served.’’ CTIA defines a 

Fully Served Block as one where either: 

(1) 90 percent of the land area is served; 

or (2) there is no parcel of Unserved 

Area measuring at least 50 contiguous 

square miles. Under both prongs, CTIA 

proposes to exclude ‘‘government lands, 

but not tribal areas.’’ All Unserved Area 

in Fully Served Blocks would be 

assigned to existing incumbents ‘‘on a 

proportional basis’’ without the use of 

competitive bidding. Disputes over 

existing CGSA boundaries and the 

distribution of the remaining Unserved 

Area to incumbents would, under 

CTIA’s Revised Plan, need to be 

resolved through cooperation among 

licensees and in the event that such 

cooperative efforts fail, by referral to 

arbitration at the expense of the 

referring party. So long as a CMA Block 

is ‘‘under-served’’ (i.e., not Fully 

Served), CTIA proposes that it remain 

under site-based licensing rules. 

7. AT&T and Verizon Wireless 

generally endorse CTIA’s Petition; they 

have not submitted comments 

specifically addressing CTIA’s Revised 

Plan. In response to the CTIA Petition, 

Verizon Wireless offers various 

additional proposals, including a 

staggered transition process based on 

regional groupings of CMA Blocks; 

establishment of a 40 dBmV/m median 

field strength limit; the provision of 

public notice of, and opportunity to 

comment on, claimed licensed area 

boundaries; and a plan for informal 

dispute resolution of boundary claims 

(more detailed than in CTIA’s Petition), 

in which a de minimis discrepancy 

standard would be applied. 

8. In contrast, commenters 

representing the interests of smaller and 

rural providers generally favor 

indefinite retention of the current sitebased licensing regime. These 

commenters include Commnet Wireless, 

LLC (Commnet), GCI, NTCA, the Rural 

Independent Competitive Alliance 

(RICA), RTG, and United States Cellular 

Corporation (USCC). RTG, for example, 

criticizes CTIA’s Revised Plan by 

asserting that it provides no incentive to 

serve areas obtained through the 

proposed proportional allotment and 

that its definition of Fully Served 

‘‘could leave large areas * * * without 

service indefinitely.’’ NTCA claims that 

its members are asked by their 

communities to ensure that hikers, 

hunters, and others enjoying the most 

rural territory can complete a call in an 

emergency. Commnet continues to send 

technicians to Unserved Area to 

determine if there is demand for service 

and claims that with most of its 

Unserved Area applications, the OSL 

could have applied for that spectrum 

‘‘over at least sixteen years’’ but did not 

do so. GCI, which operates in Alaska, 

urges continuation of site-based 

licensing and is concerned it will be 

unable to improve (or even maintain) its 

network if the Commission adopts 

CTIA’s proposal. 

9. The smaller and more rural 

providers largely reject CTIA’s statistics. 

According to RTG, for example, CTIA’s 

Petition misleadingly ‘‘undercounts 

actual use of the [site-based licensing] 

process’’ by reporting only grants, not 

filings, and only new applications, not 

modification applications. RICA, GCI, 

and NTCA make similar arguments. 

Several of these commenters are also 

skeptical of CTIA’s proposed 

mechanisms for resolving disputes that 

may arise between adjacent licensees 

concerning license boundaries. USCC 

argues that a voluntary consultation 

process is unworkable for dispute 

resolution without legal standards. 

10. While preferring retention of the 

existing paradigm, some rural 

commenters state that they could 

accept, in the alternative, a limited 

transition to geographic-area licensing. 

Their suggestions, however, are not 

highly detailed and contain ambiguities. 

GCI, for example, indicates support for 

issuance of a CMA-based license if the 

CGSA is coterminous with the CMA 

boundary or if Unserved Area in the 

CMA Block is less than 50 square miles 

but does not specify how the small areas 

would be licensed. NTCA suggests that, 

if an incumbent’s ‘‘actual service area’’ 

is not coterminous with the CMA Block 

boundary, or if there is an Unserved 

Area parcel that is 50 square miles or 

larger, the Commission could establish 

a geographic license but based only on 

the territory ‘‘actually served by the 

licensee.’’ RTG states that Cellular 

licensees could ‘‘elect * * * to 

transition to some form of market-based 

licensing,’’ but only where the new 

market-based license ‘‘would 

encompass the areas they actually 

serve.’’ USCC, a mid-sized carrier, states 

that issuance of a CMA-based license 

may be appropriate in limited 

circumstances, but argues that sitebased licensing should be retained at 

least in any market with at least one 

Unserved Area Licensee (defined in the 

NPRM and Order as a licensee that has 

established a Cellular system solely 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15668 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

through the Unserved Area application 

process following expiration of the 

OSL’s exclusive five-year initial buildout period), so that OSLs and Unserved 

Area Licensees have equal opportunity 

to expand their systems. 

11. Commenters differ on the issue of 

how to assign geographic area licenses. 

MetroPCS Communications, Inc. 

(MetroPCS), another mid-sized carrier, 

advocates a transition to geographic-area 

licensing via auction. AT&T states 

broadly that, for CMA Blocks with over 

50 contiguous square miles of Unserved 

Area, the Commission should ‘‘license 

that area through an auction or some 

other process.’’ In response, USCC 

argues that an auction is unnecessary in 

light of the existing normal closed 

auction process for mutually exclusive 

Unserved Area applications. In Ex Parte 

letters filed by CTIA to document 

various meetings with Commission staff 

in early 2012, which involved 

representatives of AT&T and Verizon 

Wireless as well, CTIA expresses 

concerns of CTIA, AT&T and Verizon 

Wireless with an overlay auction 

approach for markets that are not 

substantially served. Commnet 

emphasizes that the Commission used 

competitive bidding in prior transitions 

to geographic area licensing. 

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

12. Based on the record, it appears 

that site-based licensing may unduly 

limit licensees’ ability in many markets 

to adapt to technological and 

marketplace changes, which burdens 

licensees and consumes FCC staff 

resources, as application filings are 

required for even minor technical 

system changes. These problems can be 

addressed by moving to a geographicbased model, which would bring the 

Cellular Service into greater harmony 

with the more flexible licensing 

schemes used successfully by other 

similar mobile services, such as the 

Broadband Personal Communications 

Service (PCS) and the 700 MHz Service. 

At the same time, we propose to 

preserve direct access to Unserved Area 

through the existing site-based 

application process for an appropriate 

period in Cellular Service markets that 

are less substantially built out. 

13. In anticipation of releasing the 

NPRM, the Commission undertook the 

task of creating a digital version of every 

existing CGSA based on maps 

accompanying Cellular applications. 

The data, which the Commission used 

to calculate licensed and Unserved 

Area, is available at the Commission’s 

Web site (see http://www.fcc.gov/ 

rulemaking/12-40). It is clear from our 

data that the vast majority of CMA 

Blocks already are substantially built 

out. (Maps illustrating the data are 

provided at Appendices B and D of the 

NPRM and Order.) Licensees in these 

markets, which we term ‘‘Substantially 

Licensed’’ as set forth below, have faced 

increasing regulatory challenges, 

however. Among other things, they do 

not have the ability to modify and 

expand their systems without 

Commission filings, and must seek prior 

Commission approval through filings if 

the CGSA would be expanded, even for 

minor adjustments to their systems. We 

believe that it would serve the public 

interest to reduce administrative 

burdens for these licensees (as well as 

for Commission staff) by providing 

Cellular licensees in such markets with 

greater flexibility to modify their 

operations to respond more quickly to 

market conditions. Moreover, the 

Commission has long held that marketbased licensing regimes are simpler to 

administer for all parties. 

14. We recognize that, with direct 

access to Unserved Area through the 

site-based licensing regime, licensees 

and prospective new entrants are free to 

respond to market changes by filing an 

application on an as-needed basis (for a 

filing fee) without use of competitive 

bidding in most cases. We believe that 

there are public interest benefits of 

preserving such direct access by all 

interested parties, for some defined 

period, to any Unserved Area in CMA 

Blocks that are less substantially built 

out (i.e., not Substantially Licensed 

under our proposed test). While sitebased application filings would 

continue to be required for some period 

going forward in these markets, there is 

a significantly smaller volume of system 

modification filings in areas that are less 

built out. 

15. Additionally, in developing a new 

model aimed at transitioning the 

Cellular Service to a geographic-based 

model, we must keep in mind long-held 

Commission policies governing 

spectrum assignment. The Balanced 

Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) revised the 

Commission’s auction authority by 

substantially amending sections 

309(j)(1) and (2) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended (Act). (See 47 

U.S.C. 309(j)(1), (2).) Under section 

309(j)(1), with limited exceptions that 

are not applicable here, the Commission 

is required to license spectrum through 

competitive bidding whenever it accepts 

mutually exclusive applications for 

initial licenses or permits. The 

Commission has determined that 

applications are ‘‘mutually exclusive’’ if 

the grant of one application would 

effectively preclude the grant of one or 

more of the other applications, i.e., 

when acceptable, competing 

applications for the same license are 

filed. (When, however, the Commission 

receives only one application that is 

acceptable for filing for a particular 

license that is otherwise subject to 

auction, there is no mutual exclusivity, 

and thus, the Commission is not 

required to conduct an auction for that 

license.) Consistent with the 

Commission’s policy that competitive 

bidding places licenses in the hands of 

those that value the spectrum most 

highly, we believe that it would be in 

the public interest to adopt the 

transition described below, which 

allows the filing of mutually exclusive 

applications that would be resolved 

through competitive bidding. 

16. In light of the above-described 

goals and considerations, we propose to 

issue CMA-based Overlay Licenses for 

all Blocks via Stage I and Stage II 

auctions, thus making immediately 

available to the Overlay Licensee, for 

primary service, all Unserved Area 

remaining in the particular Block as of 

an established cut-off date. An overlay 

license is issued for the entire 

geographic area (in this case, the entire 

CMA Block), but requires the overlay 

licensee to provide interference 

protection to incumbent operations (in 

this case, Cellular Service incumbents’ 

CGSAs existing as of a certain cut-off 

date). In Stage I, we would offer Overlay 

Licenses only for those CMA Blocks that 

either: (1) As of a certain cut-off date, 

are Substantially Licensed pursuant to 

certain benchmarks (described below); 

or (2) have Cellular service that has been 

authorized solely under interim 

operating authority (IOA) (i.e., for which 

no primary license has been issued). All 

other Blocks would remain subject to 

the current site-based Unserved Area 

licensing system until we implement 

Stage II of the transition and offer 

Overlay Licenses for these remaining 

CMA Blocks. We seek comment on 

whether seven years is the appropriate 

timeframe before initiation of Stage II. 

As explained below, we propose to 

exempt from the transition the Gulf of 

Mexico Service Area (GMSA). 

17. We invite comment on all aspects 

of our proposals, as well on the 

expected costs and benefits (to the 

extent applicable) of operating under 

our proposal. For example, would the 

resulting lack of data that would 

otherwise be collected and available to 

the public through the Commission’s 

Universal Licensing System and other 

databases (i.e., data that is currently 

available regarding major and minor 

CGSA modification applications, grants, 

construction notifications, etc., 

indicating the location of Cellular 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15669 

Service transmitter sites) constitute a 

detrimental cost? If so, to what extent? 

Would the cost be outweighed by the 

benefits associated with the reduction in 

regulatory burdens, paperwork, and 

other aspects of our proposal? By 

reducing the filing burdens on many 

Cellular providers, we would expect 

resulting lower costs for the providers, 

and in turn, we would expect such 

lower costs to have a positive effect on 

service to subscribers. We seek 

comment on these cost considerations, 

including quantification of expected 

savings (in terms of monetary and 

human resources, for example) resulting 

from no longer having to submit certain 

applications once fixed boundaries have 

been established. We also seek comment 

on the extent to which expected savings 

might be passed on to subscribers. We 

hope these proposals will also promote 

enhanced competitive options for 

consumers and we seek comment on 

any additional steps the Commission 

could take, in this proceeding, to 

promote this policy priority. 

A. Stage I Transition 

1. Substantially Licensed CMA Blocks 

18. We propose to treat a CMA Block 

as Substantially Licensed if either of the 

following benchmarks is met: (1) At 

least 95 percent of the total land area is 

licensed; or (2) there is no unlicensed 

parcel within the Block at least 50 

contiguous square miles in size. An 

analysis of Cellular licensed area by 

Block reflects that only about 20 percent 

of the 1,468 CMA Blocks are 

geographically licensed between less 

than 10 percent up to roughly 94 

percent. The vast majority of all Blocks 

(approximately 80 percent) fall at or 

above the 95 percent licensed threshold, 

representing in our view a logical 

breaking point for inclusion in Stage I 

of the proposed transition. We also 

recognize, however, that a Block that 

has less than 95 percent of its total land 

area licensed might not have sufficient 

size parcels of Unserved Area to warrant 

exclusion from transition in Stage I. Our 

current rules prohibit a new entrant 

from applying to serve an area smaller 

than 50 contiguous square miles. We 

therefore propose that a Block be 

deemed Substantially Licensed if it does 

not have even one remaining unlicensed 

parcel that is at least 50 contiguous 

square miles in size, regardless of the 

percentage of licensed area. (The small 

number of CMA Blocks in this category 

does not affect the approximate 80 

percent/20 percent split between the 

Stage I and Stage II Blocks under our 

proposal.) 

19. Specifically, 601 of the 734 Block 

A markets appear to meet the proposed 

test, and 596 of the 734 Block B markets 

appear to meet the proposed test, for a 

total of 1,197 of 1,468 Blocks. The maps 

provided in Appendix D (see full text of 

the NPRM and Order) illustrate, for each 

Block, which markets appear to meet 

the proposed test and which markets, 

while served, do not. 

20. We propose to include total land 

area without exclusions in our 

calculation of licensed area and 

Unserved Area. We propose to treat 

government lands differently in this 

Cellular Service transition, compared to 

our treatment in the 700 MHz Service, 

for two reasons. First, the 700 MHz 

Service ‘‘government lands’’ exclusion 

was adopted in conjunction with the 

imposition of aggressive construction 

benchmarks, which for the first time 

included mandatory coverage of 

geography (rather than population). In 

our proposed Cellular Service 

transition, the calculation is not based 

on a consideration of compliance with 

future construction benchmarks but is 

solely for purposes of determining 

whether a CMA Block meets our test for 

inclusion in Stage I. Second, in our 

analysis of digitized CGSAs, we 

observed that Cellular licensees have 

frequently applied to provide service to 

federal lands, as the demand for Cellular 

service has increased in areas such as 

national parks. We believe that 

permitting the exclusion of lands that 

are already being served as part of a 

Cellular licensee’s CGSA would provide 

inaccurate results as to which markets 

are in fact Substantially Licensed for 

purposes of inclusion in the appropriate 

transition stage. 

21. Through our proposed transition, 

an Overlay Licensee would not only 

have the flexibility to extend service 

into currently Unserved Area, but also 

would be able to do so without filing 

modification applications, with limited 

exceptions. In addition, in the event that 

all or a portion of an incumbent’s CGSA 

is relinquished by that incumbent (e.g., 

through license cancellation, reduction 

in CGSA, permanent discontinuance of 

operations, or failure to renew a 

license), the Overlay Licensee of that 

CMA Block would no longer be required 

to protect the relinquished area and 

could immediately provide service on a 

primary basis in that area (sometimes 

known among industry stakeholders as 

‘‘reversionary rights’’). We believe that 

auctioning, instead, only the remaining 

Unserved Area in a particular Block 

without overlay licensing rights could 

result in incumbents’ relinquished areas 

being held in the Commission’s auction 

inventory and only accessible via a 

future auction. In contrast, our Overlay 

License proposal will facilitate prompt 

service to such areas through reduced 

administrative burdens. 

22. Under our proposal, just as 

incumbents that do not become Overlay 

Licensees would be assured continued 

protection from harmful interference 

within their CGSA footprint as of an 

established cut-off date, they would in 

turn be obligated to protect the Overlay 

Licensees from harmful interference. 

Non-Overlay licensees’ CGSA 

boundaries would be permanently fixed, 

insofar as such licensees would not be 

permitted to expand their CGSAs in 

Blocks included in the auction, except 

through contractual arrangements with 

other licensees. To foster secondary 

market transactions, we propose to 

continue to allow licensees to partition 

their CGSAs and/or disaggregate their 

authorized spectrum, as well as enter 

into leasing arrangements. We seek 

comment on this proposal. Non-overlay 

licensees will also be free to modify 

their systems in response to market 

demands without Commission filings, 

so long as the CGSA would not be 

expanded (other than through 

contractual arrangements) or reduced as 

a result, and subject to any obligations 

imposed on all licensees. (For example, 

certain other filings, such as 

administrative updates, license 

renewals, and filings required under the 

rules implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA) would still be 

required for all licensees.) 

23. We recognize that in Substantially 

Licensed markets included in our Stage 

I transition, the new Overlay Licenses 

awarded in the auction will be heavily 

encumbered by the incumbents, whose 

CGSAs would continue to be entitled to 

protection from harmful interference. A 

prospective Overlay Licensee would 

therefore need to be familiar with 

incumbent operations and should take 

care to understand how such operations 

may affect its ability to execute its 

business plan. Under delegated 

authority, the Bureau will determine, 

prior to conducting the auctions, what 

procedures (if any) are warranted to 

resolve discrepancies and other 

anomalies in the licensing data in order 

to establish definitive boundaries of 

existing authorized CGSAs as of certain 

cut-off dates. The Bureau will also issue 

the appropriate Public Notice(s) 

regarding such procedures. We 

recognize that, in some Blocks, the 

remaining Unserved Area as of the 

auction date may be very small, 

fragmented, and/or not immediately 

servable. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15670 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2. Interim Operating Authority Block 

(Chambers, Texas, Block A—CMA 

672A) 

24. Chambers, Texas, Block A 

(Chambers) is the only Block for which 

a Cellular license has never been issued. 

AT&T Mobility of Galveston LLC (AT&T 

Galveston) holds an interim operating 

authorization and provides Cellular 

service to nearly all of the area in this 

Block under Call Sign KNKP971. 

Notably, neither AT&T nor any other 

commenter has mentioned this 

unlicensed market thus far in this 

proceeding. We propose that Chambers 

be licensed on a geographic area (CMA 

Block) basis and that it be included in 

Stage I described above. 

25. For Chambers, we propose not to 

apply our existing rules concerning the 

various build-out and application 

phases that have been applicable to 

other Cellular markets. For example, we 

propose not to subject Chambers to the 

Phase I or Phase II licensing processes 

(and because Phase I has terminated for 

all other CMA Blocks, we are proposing 

to delete the provisions that address 

Phase I applications, and references 

thereto, throughout the part 22 subpart 

H rules and applicable part 1 rules). As 

no primary license has ever been issued 

for Chambers, the initial five-year buildout period that is described in § 22.947 

of our rules has never commenced. We 

propose not to apply to Chambers this 

five-year build-out period (and because 

it has expired for all other CMA Blocks, 

we are proposing to delete the 

provisions that address the five-year 

period, and references thereto, 

throughout the part 22 subpart H rules 

and applicable part 1 rules). Consistent 

with our treatment of newly authorized 

markets in the 700 MHz proceeding, we 

propose that the Overlay License for 

Chambers will terminate automatically 

if the licensee fails to provide signal 

coverage and offer service over at least 

35 percent of the geographic area of its 

license authorization within four years 

of initial license grant and to at least 70 

percent of the geographic area of its 

license authorization by the end of the 

license term. We further propose that, 

after the build-out requirement has been 

met, the Chambers Overlay Licensee 

should be subject to the same rules and 

obligations that we apply to those that 

are awarded the Overlay Licenses for all 

Substantially Licensed Blocks. AT&T 

Galveston does not have primary 

authority to operate and would not be 

afforded incumbent status with respect 

to any Overlay Licensee resulting from 

our proposed competitive bidding 

process. 

26. We believe this proposal provides 

the most efficient and effective means to 

foster the provision of additional 

advanced wireless service by a primary 

licensee to this Texas market. We also 

believe that our proposed performance 

obligations are appropriate given the 

increased regulatory flexibility afforded 

any Chambers Overlay Licensee under 

our transition proposal, including the 

ability to modify system parameters and 

expand service without application 

filings in most instances. In short, we 

believe that our proposal serves the 

public interest, and we seek comment 

on all aspects of the proposal, including 

any foreseeable costs. Commenters that 

oppose our proposed approach for 

Chambers should offer a detailed 

alternative proposal that is consistent 

with the goals of this proceeding and 

the Commission’s policies as set forth 

herein, as well as an analysis of the 

costs and benefits of the alternative 

proposal. 

B. Stage II Transition 

27. As stated above, based on our 

preliminary data, approximately 20 

percent of all CMA Blocks currently do 

not meet either of the two benchmarks 

of our proposed Substantially Licensed 

test. We believe that the public interest 

is best served by retaining the existing 

site-based licensing scheme in these 

Blocks—primarily Alaska and rural 

areas out west—to preserve direct access 

to such area through the Commission’s 

Unserved Area application process 

during a defined transition period. The 

reduction in administrative burdens 

identified above for Stage I markets is 

substantially smaller for these Blocks 

that are less built out and have 

relatively more Unserved Area 

remaining. In rural areas, service tends 

to become economically feasible 

gradually, and modification and newsystem applications are filed to a much 

lesser extent than modification 

applications in the Blocks that are 

already substantially built out. Our 

proposal will allow all interested 

parties, including new entrants, the 

opportunity to identify the specific 

areas they wish to serve as service 

becomes economically feasible in such 

markets due to changing demographics, 

technologies, or other factors. Under our 

current site-based rules, the one-year 

construction requirement will ensure 

prompt build-out of areas in these 

Blocks where licensees seek 

authorization to provide service. 

28. We recognize the public interest 

benefits of having all CMA Blocks under 

a single geographic area licensing 

scheme, and therefore we propose to 

retain the site-based licensing model 

only for a defined period. Specifically, 

we propose to continue this model for 

a period of seven years from the date on 

which revised Cellular Service rules 

take effect in this proceeding (Effective 

Date). We seek comment on our Stage II 

proposal and specifically on our 

proposed seven-year transitional time 

period. While we wish to effectuate 

prompt build-out in the CMA Blocks 

that do not currently meet the 

Substantially Licensed test, we 

recognize that certain markets may 

present increased challenges to 

widespread deployment in the near 

term. We seek comment on whether 

seven years is the appropriate timeframe 

that takes into account the goal of 

ensuring prompt build-out of systems 

and economic forces that might delay 

deployment in certain markets or any 

alternate proposals commenters may 

have. We also ask that commenters 

address the costs and benefits of a 

seven-year transition period, or for any 

alternate proposals set forth. 

29. Possible Exception for Alaska. It is 

likely to be many years before the 

Alaskan CMA Blocks are substantially 

built out. We seek comment on whether 

we should simply retain the status quo 

site-based scheme for Alaska 

indefinitely, rather than including it 

with other Blocks in Stage II. Even if we 

include Alaska in the proposed 

transition in Stage II, we seek comment 

on whether it is appropriate to revise 

the one-year build-out requirement for 

Alaska so long as it remains subject to 

site-based licensing. In addressing these 

issues, we also seek feedback on the 

costs and benefits of including Alaska in 

the Stage II transition, as well as 

revision to the one-year build-out 

requirement. 

30. Possible Other Exceptions. We 

seek comment on whether public 

interest considerations warrant any 

exception that we have not considered, 

e.g., an especially challenging rural 

market that might require, for example, 

an extended build-out period, or 

another kind of exception altogether. 

Commenters proposing an exception 

should include details and supporting 

rationale consistent with the goals of 

this proceeding and the Commission’s 

policies as set forth herein. 

C. Performance Requirements 

31. We are mindful of our statutory 

obligation and overarching policy goal 

of ensuring that the spectrum is used 

effectively and efficiently to provide 

valuable services to the American 

public, including those residing in rural 

areas, and that the spectrum not be 

warehoused when it could be deployed 

using new technologies and services. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15671 

We also recognize that the Cellular 

Service has, in most CMAs across the 

country, already resulted in significant 

levels of system deployment during the 

past few decades. Indeed, the level of 

build-out far exceeds even the most 

stringent geographic-based construction 

benchmarks the Commission has 

imposed on any wireless service to 

foster public interest goals. In the 

markets not Substantially Licensed—20 

percent of the CMA Blocks—the current 

level of build-out varies significantly, as 

discussed above, with most above 70 

percent geographic coverage, and a few 

below 10 percent geographic coverage 

(e.g., certain Alaskan CMA Blocks), with 

the rest somewhere in between. 

32. We seek comment on whether we 

should adopt any performance 

benchmarks for Overlay Licenses to 

promote build-out in areas covered by 

these licenses where spectrum is 

unused and the costs and benefits of 

doing so. If we decide to adopt 

performance benchmarks, what would 

the measures be? Would it be 

appropriate to establish build-out 

requirements that vary depending on 

the amount of Unserved Area 

remaining, or for CMA Blocks that face 

particular construction challenges (e.g., 

Alaska)? In seeking comment, we note 

that the Commission has never 

established performance requirements 

in similar services mandating 100 

percent build-out of all areas or 

population centers in a geographicbased license. 

33. We also seek comment on 

whether, in place of or in addition to 

performance build-out requirements, we 

should require an Overlay Licensee to 

make unused spectrum available in the 

secondary market to entities that have 

need for it. Specifically, we request 

comment on various possible 

approaches for facilitating secondary 

market transactions for use of spectrum 

that the Overlay Licensee is not using or 

may not be inclined to use. As one 

possible approach, we seek comment on 

whether Overlay Licensees that 

continue to hold unused spectrum after 

a certain period of time should be 

required to make that information 

publicly available, in some readily 

accessible and transparent fashion, so 

that any party interested in using that 

spectrum can more easily seek to take 

advantage of the opportunity to gain 

access to the spectrum. If we were to 

require the licensee to provide 

information on unused spectrum, how 

should this information be made 

publicly available? We also seek 

comment on the possible costs and 

benefits of pursuing this secondary 

market transparency approach. 

34. As another possible approach, 

should Overlay Licensees be required to 

participate in good faith negotiations 

with a party expressing an interest in 

spectrum leasing, partitioning, or 

disaggregating spectrum in a CMA 

Block? Or, should we consider a 

modified version of negotiation 

methodologies employed in other 

wireless services, possibly involving 

phases of voluntary negotiations, 

followed by mandatory negotiations? 

What are the relative benefits and costs 

to such an approach in the context of 

Overlay Licenses? 

35. In considering various 

approaches, we request that commenters 

address any difficulties they may have 

experienced when seeking to access 

unused spectrum in secondary markets 

transactions that could inform our 

decision-making and could improve the 

workings of secondary markets with 

respect to unused spectrum associated 

with Overlay Licenses. Finally, we seek 

comment on any other approach that 

commenters may suggest that could 

facilitate secondary market transactions 

that help ensure that valuable spectrum 

resources do not needlessly lie fallow. 

D. Competitive Bidding Procedures 

36. As stated above, consistent with 

the Commission’s approach in prior 

transitions of other services from sitebased to geographic area-based overlay 

licensing, we believe that it serves the 

public interest to accept competing, 

mutually exclusive applications in our 

proposed transition of Cellular licensing 

that will be resolved by competitive 

bidding. We reiterate that we are 

interested in reducing regulatory 

burdens and affording increased system 

flexibility (including deployment of 

broadband service) within fixed 

boundaries for Cellular licensees, but in 

a manner that is consistent with 

Commission precedent and spectrum 

management policies. No commenter 

has offered a justification for departing 

from a transition approach under which 

we accept mutually exclusive 

applications. Competitive bidding 

should place Cellular Overlay Licenses 

in the hands of those that value them 

most. 

37. In other competing commercial 

wireless services, the Commission 

implemented geographic-based 

licensing, rather than a site-based 

model, from the inception of the radio 

service, particularly in PCS, the 

Advanced Wireless Service (AWS), and 

the 700 MHz Service. In these radio 

services, the existing incumbents (e.g., 

microwave, government, and 

broadcasters) were to be relocated. In 

other commercial wireless services 

where incumbents were originally 

licensed on a site-by-site basis but were 

permitted to remain in the band, the 

Commission also chose to transition to 

geographic-based overlay licensing 

including, for example, the 800 MHz 

specialized mobile radio service, the 

220 MHz private land mobile radio 

service, and the 929–931 MHz paging 

services. In each instance, the 

Commission determined that the 

geographic-area licensing model 

afforded licensees increased flexibility 

to construct and operate facilities within 

a larger geographic area and commence 

operations without prior Commission 

approval, thereby reducing regulatory 

burdens. 

38. In the event we adopt our 

proposal for a transition entailing 

competitive bidding, we propose to 

apply the general competitive bidding 

rules set forth in part 1, subpart Q of the 

Commission’s rules, substantially 

consistent with the bidding procedures 

that have been employed in previous 

auctions. Specifically, we propose to 

employ the Part 1 rules governing 

competitive bidding design, designated 

entity preferences, unjust enrichment, 

application and payment procedures, 

reporting requirements, and the 

prohibition on certain communications 

between auction applicants. Under this 

proposal, such rules would be subject to 

any modifications that the Commission 

may adopt in the future. In addition, 

consistent with our long-standing 

approach, auction-specific matters such 

as the competitive bidding design and 

mechanisms, as well as minimum 

opening bids and/or reserve prices, 

would be determined by the Bureau 

pursuant to its delegated authority. We 

invite comment on this proposal. In 

particular, we request comment on 

whether any of our part 1 competitive 

bidding rules or other auction 

procedures would be inappropriate or 

should be modified for an auction of 

Cellular licenses in the context of this 

proceeding. 

39. Provisions for Designated Entities. 

In authorizing the Commission to use 

competitive bidding, Congress 

mandated that the Commission ‘‘ensure 

that small businesses, rural telephone 

companies, and businesses owned by 

members of minority groups and women 

are given the opportunity to participate 

in the provision of spectrum-based 

services.’’ In addition, section 

309(j)(3)(B) of the Act provides that, in 

establishing eligibility criteria and 

bidding methodologies, the Commission 

shall promote ‘‘economic opportunity 

and competition . . . by avoiding 

excessive concentration of licenses and 

by disseminating licenses among a wide 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15672 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

variety of applicants, including small 

businesses, rural telephone companies, 

and businesses owned by members of 

minority groups and women.’’ One of 

the principal means by which the 

Commission fulfills these mandates is 

through the award of bidding credits to 

small businesses. The Commission’s 

experience with numerous auctions has 

demonstrated that bidding credits for 

designated entities afford such entities 

substantial opportunity to compete with 

larger businesses for spectrum licenses 

and provide spectrum-based services. 

40. The Commission has stated that it 

would define eligibility requirements 

for small businesses on a servicespecific basis, taking into account the 

capital requirements and other 

characteristics of each particular service 

in establishing the appropriate 

threshold. Although it has standardized 

many of its auction rules, the 

Commission has determined that it will 

continue a service-by-service approach 

to defining small businesses. 

41. We propose to employ the 

following three small business 

definitions for auctions of these 

licenses. We seek comment on whether 

we should define an entrepreneur as an 

entity with average gross revenues for 

the preceding three years not exceeding 

$40 million, a small business as an 

entity with average gross revenues for 

the preceding three years not exceeding 

$15 million, and a very small business 

as an entity with average gross revenues 

for the preceding three years not 

exceeding $3 million. As provided in 

§ 1.2110(f)(2) of our rules, we seek 

comment on whether we should offer 

entrepreneurs a bidding credit of 15 

percent, small businesses a bidding 

credit of 25 percent, and very small 

businesses a bidding credit of 35 

percent. Commenters are encouraged to 

provide feedback on the costs and 

benefits of these proposed definitions 

and bidding credit designations. We 

also invite input on whether alternative 

size standards should be established in 

light of the particular circumstances or 

requirements that may apply to the 

proposed Cellular Overlay Licenses. 

Commenters advocating alternatives 

should explain the basis for their 

proposed alternatives, including 

whether anything about the 

characteristics or capital requirements 

of providing Cellular service or other 

considerations require a different 

approach, as well as the costs and 

benefits of the alternatives. 

E. Gulf of Mexico Service Area 

42. Cellular service in the Gulf of 

Mexico Service Area (GMSA) (CMA 

Blocks 306A and 306B) is subject to 

special licensing rules. The GMSA is 

divided by rule into two zones: the 

Coastal Zone (GMCZ) in the Eastern 

Gulf region and the Exclusive Zone 

(GMEZ). The existing Cellular licensing 

regime for the GMSA was carefully 

developed by the Commission after 

taking into account many prior disputes 

between Gulf-based and adjacent landbased carriers, multiple prior 

Commission decisions, court litigation 

and judicial rulings, as well as the 

unique circumstances of providing 

Cellular service in the Gulf region. We 

propose not to alter the existing regime, 

except that we propose to subject GMSA 

licensees to our proposed field strength 

limit, discussed below. We also believe 

that GMSA licensees may benefit from 

certain other rule changes proposed in 

the NPRM. We seek comment on our 

proposed exemption of the GMSA from 

a Cellular licensing transition at this 

time, including comment on which (if 

any) individual rule changes should be 

applied to GMSA licensees. 

F. Signal Field Strength Limit Proposal 

43. The Commission believes that a 

median field strength limit of 40 dBmV/ 

m is appropriate for the Cellular Service 

and proposes that all Cellular licensees 

be subject to this limit in all CMA 

Blocks. With an established field 

strength limit applicable to all Cellular 

licensees, the current rule governing 

Service Area Boundary (SAB) 

extensions (see 47 CFR 22.912) would 

be unnecessary, even in those CMA 

Blocks that remain subject to the current 

site-based licensing rules for Unserved 

Area. In the latter class of CMA Blocks, 

however, SABs and CGSAs (for new 

systems and expansions of existing 

systems) would still be calculated under 

the provisions currently set forth in 

§ 22.911. We seek comment on our 

proposal. 

44. An appropriate field strength limit 

allows a licensee to transmit at a signal 

strength sufficient to provide reliable 

service right up to the license boundary, 

while preventing the licensee from 

transmitting at a signal strength that is 

excessive for that purpose. Having a 47 

dBmV/m field strength limit for PCS, for 

example, has worked effectively as a 

limit on the amount of signal incursion 

a licensee may have into an adjacent 

licensed area, and we believe that a 40 

dBmV/m field strength limit will be 

similarly effective for the Cellular 

Service. We do not anticipate a notable 

increase in boundary disputes if we 

adopt our proposal. There is no 

evidence of a causal relationship 

between boundary disputes and a field 

strength limit if the limit applies equally 

to all licensees in a given service. 

45. We believe that co-channel 

licensees are in the best position to 

negotiate placement and parameters of 

facilities near the boundary of another 

licensee’s protected area, taking into 

account the factors unique to their 

systems and the area involved, 

including, for example, technologies, 

traffic loading, topography, and location 

of major roads. Thus, consistent with 

the PCS field strength limit rules, we 

also propose to allow Cellular licensees 

to negotiate contractual agreements 

specifying field strength limits different 

from the limit established by rule. We 

emphasize, however, that Commission 

rules do not allow licensees to agree to 

transmit their signals at a power level 

that is higher than the applicable power 

limit set forth in the rules. 

46. Even with full compliance with 

the proposed field strength limit, 

licensees operating in proximity to each 

other will still need to coordinate 

channel usage in order to avoid 

mutually destructive interference. 

Section 22.907 of our rules requires that 

interference problems (and any possible 

problems with traffic capture) in the 

Cellular Service be avoided by 

coordination between or among 

licensees. We propose to retain the 

requirements for mandatory 

coordination that are currently set forth 

in § 22.907. 

47. We encourage parties to address 

all aspects of our proposal concerning a 

field strength limit and continued 

mandatory licensee coordination. 

Interested parties that offer a counterproposal, whether for a different field 

strength limit or non-use of any signal 

field strength limit, should be specific 

and explain how their proposal better 

serves the public interest, including 

whether it would be more cost effective. 

G. Other Alternatives to the 

Commission’s Proposed Transition 

48. Single-stage Transition for All 

Blocks. We seek comment on the 

possibility of eliminating the site-based 

licensing scheme and transitioning 

expeditiously, via a single auction, all 

CMA Blocks to a geographic-based 

model. Commenters should address the 

impact of such a proposal on rural 

service and rural interests in particular, 

given that once an Overlay License is 

offered at auction, the Unserved Area in 

that particular Block would no longer be 

available under site-based licensing, 

even if the Overlay License returns to 

the Commission for re-licensing. For 

example, if there is no successful bidder 

at auction, or if a successful bidder is 

awarded the Overlay License but then, 

years later, fails to renew, the only 

methodology for re-licensing is to offer 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15673 

the Overlay License again at a 

subsequent Commission auction. We 

seek comment on these considerations 

under this alternate approach. 

49. A Three-Stage Transition. As 

another alternative, we could subdivide 

the Blocks that do not now meet the 

Substantially Licensed test into two 

groups, as there may be some markets 

that need even more time, such as those 

in Alaska and other very rural areas 

with similar construction challenges, 

resulting in a third stage in the Cellular 

licensing transition. We seek specific 

comment on this approach as well. For 

example, what benchmarks should be 

used to distinguish the Stage II Blocks 

from the Stage III Blocks, and what is 

the basis for choosing such benchmarks? 

What would be an appropriate dividing 

line in terms of licensed area? What 

should the trigger dates be for Stage II 

and Stage III, and what would be the 

rationale? We also seek comment on 

whether all Blocks with unique 

construction challenges should be 

subject to an extended build-out 

requirement while they remain under 

the site-based licensing regime. 

50. Other Alternatives. We also 

welcome submission of alternatives that 

we have not considered herein. 

Commenters who oppose our two-stage 

proposal and advocate an alternative 

need to address details of 

implementation and should 

demonstrate how their alternative serves 

the public interest and is cost effective. 

H. Proposed Amendments to Rules and 

Possible Rule Relocation 

1. Proposed Amendments 

51. Transition-related proposed 

amendments. Proposed new and revised 

rules to reflect the proposed two-stage 

transition of Cellular licensing are set 

forth in Appendix E of the NPRM and 

Order. We urge all parties to review 

Appendix E closely and submit detailed 

comments. Our proposals introduce 

some new terminology, including for 

incumbent operations, and we also 

propose revisions and some deletions 

regarding the definitions in § 22.99. 

52. Other Deletions and Updates. 

Although we are not proposing 

immediate fundamental changes to the 

rules for CMA Blocks that are not to be 

included in the Stage I transition 

(except for the proposed establishment 

of a signal field strength limit), we have 

reviewed all the subpart H rules as well 

as certain part 1 rules applicable to 

Cellular licensing in an effort to 

streamline or update them, and we 

propose certain changes. We have also 

reviewed these rules to determine 

whether any should be deleted as 

obsolete or, going forward, no longer 

necessary. For example, we believe that 

certain items required under §§ 22.929 

and 22.953(a) of our rules will no longer 

be routinely of interest to the 

Commission’s engineering staff in their 

review of Cellular applications in the 

future, and accordingly, we propose to 

streamline these requirements in a 

revised § 22.953 (and a corresponding 

deletion of § 22.929). In addition, we 

discuss below a proposal regarding 

§ 22.901(b). The results of our review 

are reflected in the proposed rules set 

forth in Appendix E of the NPRM and 

Order. We invite all commenters to 

review each of the proposed revisions, 

additions, and deletions and comment 

on them with specificity. If there are 

other rules that commenters believe 

should be revised, deleted or added as 

part of our effort to streamline and 

update the rules that govern Cellular 

licensees, we welcome suggestions 

regarding such revisions. Commenters 

should be specific in their proposals, 

providing proposed language for the 

rule itself as well as the rationale for the 

change. 

53. AMPS Sunset Certifications: 

Termination of Collection; Deletion of 

Section 22.901(b). On June 15, 2007, the 

Commission released an Order 

declining to extend the sunset of the 

Cellular analog service requirement set 

forth in § 22.901(b) of our rules. See 22 

FCC Rcd 11243 (2007). Pursuant to such 

2007 AMPS Sunset Order, on November 

16, 2007, the Bureau released a Public 

Notice (see 22 FCC Rcd 19922 (WTB 

2007)) with instructions for Cellular 

licensees on how to file a one-time 

Cellular Coverage Certification (AMPS 

Sunset Certification), which would 

certify that discontinuance of analog 

service would not result in any loss of 

wireless coverage throughout the CGSA. 

By filing an AMPS Sunset Certification, 

licensees could preserve the rights 

associated with their previously 

determined CGSAs on file with the 

Commission as of the AMPS Sunset 

Certification’s filing date. The 

overwhelming majority of Cellular 

licensees have opted to file an AMPS 

Sunset Certification. We believe that all 

Cellular licensees have had ample 

time—more than four years since the 

AMPS Instructions Notice—to make 

their choice and file either the one-time 

AMPS Sunset Certification or the 

appropriate revised CGSA showing. 

Accordingly, we propose to terminate 

the Commission’s collection of such 

Certifications and to delete § 22.901(b). 

We welcome comment on these 

proposals. 

2. Possible Relocation of Part 22 Cellular 

and Part 24 PCS Rules to Part 27 

54. In light of our proposal to revise 

the Cellular licensing rules to bring 

them in line with the more flexible rules 

that govern other wireless services, we 

take this opportunity to invite comment 

on placement of revised rules that may 

ultimately be adopted in this 

proceeding. Specifically, in the event 

that we adopt a geographic area regime 

that includes Overlay Licenses, should 

the new Cellular rules be incorporated 

into part 27, which houses the existing 

rules for certain other flexible wireless 

services, such as AWS, rather than in 

subpart H of part 22? If the revised 

Cellular rules are to be incorporated into 

part 27, we believe that the rules for part 

24 PCS—which is already a flexible 

service governed by geographic areabased licensing—should then also be 

moved into part 27. Should the 

Commission initiate a separate 

rulemaking to revise the part 27 rules 

and reserve the possible relocation of 

Cellular and PCS rules to that separate 

proceeding? We welcome comment on 

such relocations and the optimal timing 

for them. 

3. Proposed Correction of Section 

1.958(d) 

55. We take this opportunity to 

propose correction of a clerical error in 

the distance computation formula in 

§ 1.958(d) of our rules. The error was 

introduced in the process of moving the 

provision containing the formula from 

part 22 (§ 22.157) to subpart F of part 1. 

The proposed correction is included in 

Appendix E of the NPRM and Order. 

IV. Order 

56. To facilitate the orderly and 

effective resolution of the fundamental 

changes and issues raised in the NPRM, 

and consistent with our actions in 

numerous prior proceedings, the 

Commission adopts a companion Order 

on February 15, 2012 in which it 

imposes an immediate freeze on the 

acceptance of certain Cellular 

applications in certain markets, as 

explained below, and imposes other 

interim procedures for certain Cellular 

applications, as also explained below. 

The Commission’s decision to impose a 

freeze and other interim procedures is 

procedural and therefore not subject to 

the notice and comment or effective 

date requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), 

(d). See also, e.g., Bachow 

Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 

683 (D.C. Cir. 2001)). The tailored freeze 

and other interim procedures are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15674 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

effective as of February 15, 2012 until 

further notice. 

A. Suspension of Certain Filings 

57. Rather than imposing a freeze on 

all modification and new-system 

applications, the Commission has 

tailored the freeze in this proceeding to: 

(1) provide for the continued expansion 

of service to consumers during the 

pendency of this proceeding; and (2) 

help the Commission identify Unserved 

Area and inform potential bidders of 

encumbrances well in advance of the 

auction. A tailored freeze will facilitate 

much needed network changes. We 

conclude that the benefits described 

above outweigh the limited potential 

costs of this tailored freeze. 

58. As of the Adoption Date (February 

15, 2012) and until further notice, we 

have suspended acceptance of certain 

Cellular applications claiming Unserved 

Area in ‘‘Covered’’ CMA Blocks. We 

wish to allow licensees to continue 

limited expansion of existing systems 

necessary to respond to customer needs 

by addressing technical changes at the 

periphery of their current CGSAs 

without facing strike applications, i.e., 

applications filed primarily to block 

such service during a transition to 

geographic area licensing. Moreover, 

accepting and processing all 

applications in the normal course under 

our current rules would arguably be 

inconsistent with our goal of changing 

to a less burdensome licensing system. 

59. Covered Blocks include: (i) Those 

we preliminarily determine to be 

Substantially Licensed under either 

benchmark of our proposed test (listed 

in Appendix C of the NPRM and Order); 

and (ii) those we preliminarily 

determine to be more than 90 percent 

but less than 95 percent licensed (listed 

in Appendix F of the NPRM and Order). 

In Covered Blocks, we prohibit the filing 

of applications for: (a) new-system 

Cellular licenses; and (b) major 

modifications to expand existing 

systems if claiming Unserved Area that 

is not contiguous to the existing CGSA. 

The prohibition applies even if a 

portion of the area to be claimed as 

CGSA lies in a non-Covered Block. 

Thus, for example, if a proposed newsystem or major modification 

application proposes to claim (as CGSA) 

Unserved Area that straddles a CMA 

boundary, where the CMA Block on one 

side of the boundary is Covered while 

the Block on the other side of the 

boundary is non-Covered, the entire 

application will be treated as if solely 

for Unserved Area in a Covered Block. 

Any applications prohibited under the 

Order that are received on or after the 

Adoption Date are to be dismissed by 

the Bureau as unacceptable for filing. 

60. We are permitting major 

modification applications that propose 

CGSA expansion in, or into, Covered 

Blocks only if claiming Unserved Area 

that is contiguous to the existing CGSA. 

(If an application proposes to claim (as 

CGSA) contiguous Unserved Area that is 

partially in a Covered Block and 

partially in a non-Covered Block, the 

application will be treated as if the 

entire claimed area is in a Covered 

Block.) Also, as of the Adoption Date 

and until further notice, we are using a 

‘‘same-day filing group’’ for purposes of 

determining mutual exclusivity of 

permissible Cellular applications that 

entail Unserved Area in Covered Blocks. 

We will dismiss any mutually exclusive 

applications claiming Unserved Area in 

Covered Blocks that are received on or 

after the Adoption Date rather than 

conduct closed auctions to resolve such 

applications. We will permit major 

amendments to permissible major 

modification applications only so long 

as the proposed CGSA expansion in the 

amendment is claiming Unserved Area 

that is contiguous to the existing 

licensed CGSA. (If the amendment 

proposes to claim (as CGSA) contiguous 

Unserved Area that is partially in a 

Covered Block and partially in a nonCovered Block, it will be treated as if the 

entire claimed area is in a Covered 

Block.) Also, for such major 

amendments filed on or after the 

Adoption Date and until further notice, 

we will use a ‘‘same-day filing group’’ 

for purposes of determining mutual 

exclusivity, and we will dismiss any 

such mutually exclusive major 

amendments rather than conduct closed 

auctions to resolve them. 

61. These interim filing procedures do 

not affect applications claiming 

Unserved Area solely in non-Covered 

CMA Blocks, which we will continue to 

accept and process under current rules 

and procedures, nor do they affect any 

applications that do not propose a new 

Cellular system or a CGSA expansion 

(e.g., renewals, transfers, assignments, 

modifications that do not extend a 

CGSA boundary, administrative 

updates, and required notifications), no 

matter the Block. Applications for 

renewal must comply with any 

applicable provisions of the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking released by the 

Commission in the Wireless Radio 

Services (WRS) proceeding in May 

2010. (See generally WRS NPRM, 25 

FCC Rcd 6996 (2010). See also 47 CFR 

1.939.) We advise all parties, however, 

that although minor modification 

applications (regardless of market) are 

not affected by the freeze imposed 

under this Order, we know from 

experience that staff might find on 

review that a purported minor 

modification application submitted on 

or after the Adoption Date is in fact a 

major modification application. If such 

an application is for Unserved Area (in 

whole or in part) in a Covered CMA 

Block, the application will be subject to 

the same procedures and restrictions 

described above (including dismissal if 

an impermissible filing under this 

Order). 

62. In the following Section B, we 

discuss how we will process currently 

pending new-system and CGSAexpansion applications in Covered CMA 

Blocks. 

B. Currently Pending Non-Mutually 

Exclusive Applications in Covered CMA 

Blocks 

63. New-System and Major 

Modification Applications. Currently 

pending applications (i.e., filed prior to 

the Adoption Date) that propose either 

a new Cellular system or a modification 

that would expand an existing system’s 

CGSA boundary in, or into, Covered 

CMA Blocks fall into one of two 

categories: (1) Those accepted for filing 

and placed on public notice at least 30 

days before the Adoption Date; and (2) 

those for which the 30-day public 

comment period has not yet expired as 

of the Adoption Date. We will treat nonmutually exclusive applications in the 

first category (including pending 

applications that would be 

impermissible under this Order if filed 

on or after the Adoption Date) under 

existing rules and will process them in 

the normal course as expeditiously as 

possible, subject to certain interim 

procedures regarding major 

amendments. Specifically, for pending 

modification applications proposing 

expansion of an existing CGSA, we will 

permit major amendments on or after 

the Adoption Date subject to the same 

interim procedures described above in 

Section IV.A. For pending new-system 

applications, we will permit major 

amendments on or after the Adoption 

Date only so long as the proposed newsystem CGSA in the amendment is 

claiming Unserved Area that is 

contiguous to the CGSA proposed in the 

application that was pending as of the 

Adoption Date. (If an application 

proposes to claim (as CGSA) contiguous 

Unserved Area that is partially in a 

Covered Block and partially in a nonCovered Block, the application will be 

treated as if the entire claimed area is in 

a Covered Block.) For such 

amendments, we will use a ‘‘same-day 

filing group’’ for purposes of 

determining mutual exclusivity, and we 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15675 

will dismiss any such mutually 

exclusive major amendments claiming 

Unserved Area in Covered Blocks that 

are received on or after the Adoption 

Date rather than conduct closed 

auctions to resolve them. On balance, 

rather than holding them in abeyance 

until conclusion of this proceeding, we 

concluded that processing pending 

applications in the first category under 

existing rules, subject to the interim 

procedures described herein, will not 

sacrifice the goals we seek to 

accomplish in this proceeding. 

64. Pending new-system and major 

modification applications in the second 

category (i.e., filed prior to the Adoption 

Date but for which the 30-day comment 

period has not expired) claiming any 

Unserved Area in Covered CMA Blocks 

will be deemed mutually exclusive only 

if a competing application was filed 

prior to the adoption date of the Order. 

Applications in the second category that 

are not mutually exclusive will be 

processed under our current rules, 

except that we will only permit the 

filing of major amendments subject to 

the same interim procedures described 

above regarding major amendments to 

applications in the first category. 

65. Minor Modifications. As explained 

above, applications submitted as minor 

modifications of an existing CGSA are 

sometimes found by staff to be major 

modification applications. During the 

pendency of this proceeding, a minor 

modification application submitted 

prior to the Adoption Date that is 

determined to be proposing a major 

modification claiming (as CGSA) 

Unserved Area in a Covered Block will 

be treated the same as a pending major 

modification application in accordance 

with the interim procedures described 

above. 

V. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose 

66. The proceeding that the NPRM 

initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine Period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with 

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission 

has made available a method of 

electronic filing, written ex parte 

presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

B. Comment Period and Procedures 

67. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, interested 

parties may file comments and reply 

comments on or before the dates 

indicated on the first page of this 

document. All comments and reply 

comments should refer to WT Docket 

No. 12–40. Comments may be filed 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 

must be held together with rubber bands 

or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 

must be disposed of before entering the 

building. 

D Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

68. People with Disabilities: To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (Braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (tty). 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Order 

69. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

NPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be filed by the same dates as listed on 

the first page of the NPRM and must 

have a separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to this 

IRFA. The Commission will send a copy 

of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

70. In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposes a transition for the 800 MHz 

Cellular (Cellular) Service from sitebased licensing to geographic-area 

licensing. The proposed transition 

would occur in two stages, via 

Commission auction. We believe that 

the current site-based paradigm is 

outdated and hinders carriers from 

being able to respond quickly to 

changing market conditions and 

consumer demands. We also believe it 

is contrary to the public interest to 

maintain a burdensome system to 

preserve extremely limited Unserved 

Area licensing opportunities. The 

Commission’s early key goal of creating 

a seamless and integrated nationwide 

Cellular Service has been achieved 

throughout the vast majority of our 

nation. The Commission has long held 

that market-based licensing regimes are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15676 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

simpler to administer for all parties 

concerned. The proposed transition 

would reduce administrative burdens 

for licensees as well as Commission 

staff. The proposed transition is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

ongoing regulatory reform agenda and 

also supports the Commission’s Data 

Innovation Initiative, launched in June 

2010, by reducing information 

collection burdens under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. We anticipate that, with 

the proposed additional flexibility 

provided to licensees, the regulatory 

and compliance costs associated with 

service provision would be reduced. 

These changes would also put Cellular 

licensees more on par with other 

wireless telecommunications licensees 

and further the Commission’s goal of 

rule harmonization for the different 

wireless services. 

71. As detailed in Section III, we 

propose a transition in two stages. 

Consistent with precedent, we would 

accept competing applications for 

Overlay Licenses, and resolve them via 

auction, for each CMA Block. In Stage 

I, the Commission would offer Overlay 

Licenses for all CMA Blocks that are 

‘‘Substantially Licensed’’ or authorized 

solely under interim operating authority 

(IOA). We propose the following test to 

determine if a CMA Block is 

Substantially Licensed: either (1) at least 

95 percent of the total land area in the 

CMA Block is licensed; or (2) there is no 

parcel within the Block at least 50 

contiguous square miles in size that is 

not licensed. We believe it is 

appropriate to include total land area 

without exclusions in calculating the 

licensed area. If a CMA Block meets 

either benchmark as of an established 

date, it would be deemed Substantially 

Licensed and included in the Stage I 

transition. We propose, however, that 

the Gulf of Mexico Service Area (GMSA) 

be exempt from the transition because it 

is governed by a specialized licensing 

regime. 

72. All CMA Blocks that do not meet 

the Substantially Licensed test would 

remain under site-based licensing until 

Stage II is triggered. In Stage II, the 

Commission proposes to offer Overlay 

Licenses for all remaining CMA Blocks 

(except the GMSA), regardless of the 

percentage of total land area licensed, 

and terminate site-based licensing. In 

the NPRM, we propose to continue the 

site-based model for seven years before 

Stage II is triggered, and we seek 

comment on whether this is the 

appropriate period of time. We believe 

that the public interest is best served by 

preserving the current scheme’s direct 

spectrum access through site-based 

applications in Blocks that are not yet 

Substantially Licensed, primarily rural 

areas out west, for a defined period of 

time. This will allow all interested 

parties to have the opportunity to 

identify the specific areas they wish to 

serve as demographics change or service 

otherwise becomes economically 

feasible in such markets. Moreover, sitebased licensing in such Blocks will 

ensure build-out within one year of 

authorization of such areas. 

73. Overlay Licensees would be 

obligated to protect incumbent 

licensees’ operations from harmful 

interference. That obligation would 

cease with respect to any incumbent’s 

licensed area relinquished for any 

reason in the future (e.g., through failure 

to renew the license). Such relinquished 

areas would not be returned to the 

Commission’s auction inventory but, 

rather, could by served immediately by 

the Overlay Licensee on a primary basis 

without being subject to competitive 

bidding. 

74. The Chambers, Texas Block-A 

market (Chambers) is the only CMA 

Block for which a license has never 

been issued; the market is served solely 

under IOA. We propose to include 

Chambers in the Stage I auction and 

award an Overlay License consistent 

with the process described for the 

Substantially Licensed Blocks, but 

subject to specific build-out 

requirements for the Chambers Overlay 

Licensee, as explained in Section 

III.A.2. We believe this is the most 

efficient and effective way to resolve the 

continued lack of a licensee and help 

bring additional advanced service to 

this Texas market. 

75. We also propose that all Cellular 

licensees, regardless of Block, should be 

subject to a field strength limit at their 

respective license boundaries, similar to 

licensees in other flexible services such 

as PCS, certain AWS, etc. The NPRM 

proposes a median field strength limit of 

40 dBmV/m for the Cellular Service. We 

also propose certain other revisions in 

individual Cellular rules to reflect the 

proposed transition, and to delete 

provisions that we deem obsolete or 

unnecessary going forward, including 

certain application requirements and 

other filings, and to streamline certain 

other provisions. The proposed rules are 

set forth in Appendix E and we 

encourage all interested parties to 

review them carefully. We seek 

comment on how the proposals will 

impact the amount of information 

available to regulated entities and the 

public. 

Legal Basis 

76. The proposed action is taken 

under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 303, 307, 

309, 319, 324, and 332 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

301, 303, 307, 309, 319, 324, and 332. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rules Will Apply 

77. 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. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (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. 

78. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, and Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, 

affect small entities that are not easily 

categorized at present. We therefore 

describe here, at the outset, three 

comprehensive, statutory small entity 

size standards. First, nationwide, there 

are a total of approximately 27.5 million 

small businesses, according to the SBA. 

In addition, a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ Nationwide, as of 2007, there 

were approximately 1,621,315 small 

organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined 

generally as ‘‘governments of cities, 

towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a 

population of less than fifty thousand.’’ 

Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate 

that there were 89,476 local 

governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. We estimate that, of this 

total, as many as 88,506 entities may 

qualify as ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that 

most governmental jurisdictions are 

small. 

79. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). The 

appropriate size standard under SBA 

rules is for the category Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers. The size 

standard for that category is that a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census Bureau data for 

2007, which now supersede data from 

the 2002 Census, show that there were 

3,188 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15677 

total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or 

fewer, and 44 firms had employment of 

1,000 employees or more. Thus, under 

this category and the associated small 

business size standard, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities that may be 

affected by our proposed action. The 

Commission’s own data—available on 

its Spectrum Dashboard—indicate that, 

as of February 9, 2012, there are 347 

Cellular licensees that will be affected 

by this NPRM. The Commission does 

not know how many of these licensees 

are small, as the Commission does not 

collect that information for these types 

of entities. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

80. In the NPRM, the Commission 

seeks to reduce filing burdens and 

recordkeeping for all Cellular licensees 

by changing from site-based to 

geographic area licensing. We propose 

that, in the Blocks for which an Overlay 

License is offered, the CGSA boundaries 

of incumbents that do not become 

Overlay Licensees would be 

permanently fixed insofar as such 

incumbents would not be permitted to 

expand their CGSAs, except through 

contractual arrangements with other 

licensees. They would, however, be free 

to modify their systems in response to 

market demands without Commission 

filings in most cases, so long as the 

CGSA would not be changed as a result, 

and subject to any obligations we 

impose on all Cellular licensees. 

81. Under our proposal, in most cases 

Overlay Licensees would be free as well 

to modify their systems without 

Commission filings, thereby minimizing 

their regulatory burdens. In addition, 

while Overlay Licensees would be 

obligated to protect incumbent 

licensees’ operations from harmful 

interference, that obligation would cease 

with respect to any incumbent’s 

licensed area (CGSA) or portion thereof 

that is relinquished for any reason in the 

future (e.g., through failure to renew the 

license). Such relinquished areas would 

not be returned to the Commission’s 

auction inventory but, rather, could be 

served by the Overlay Licensee on a 

primary basis immediately, without 

being subject to competitive bidding. 

82. Once an Overlay License is 

granted via auction for Chambers, we 

propose not to subject the Licensee to 

the existing rules concerning the fiveyear build-out phase or the Phase I or 

Phase II license application processes 

that have been applicable to other CMA 

Blocks. Instead, we propose that the 

Chambers Overlay Licensee be required 

to demonstrate that it has built out a 

Cellular system that is providing signal 

coverage and offering service over at 

least 35 percent of the geographic area 

of its license authorization within four 

years of initial license grant and at least 

70 percent of the geographic area of its 

license authorization by the end of the 

license term, with failure to meet these 

build-out deadlines resulting in 

automatic forfeiture of the license. We 

further propose that, after the build-out 

requirements have been met, the 

Chambers Overlay Licensee should be 

subject to the same rules and obligations 

that we apply to the other Overlay 

Licenses issued in Stage I of the 

transition. For example, we seek 

comment in the NPRM on whether 

Overlay Licensees should be subject to 

performance requirements. 

83. The Commission also proposes 

that all Cellular licensees be subject to 

a field strength limit at their respective 

license boundaries and that a median 

field strength limit of 40 dBmV/m is 

appropriate for the Cellular Band. 

Coordination among co-channel 

licensees regarding channel usage will 

remain essential in actually preventing 

harmful interference. We therefore 

propose to retain the current Cellular 

Service rule mandating coordination in 

certain circumstances (§ 22.907), but we 

also propose to allow Cellular licensees 

to negotiate contractual agreements 

specifying different field strength limits. 

This will provide licensees with 

additional flexibility in their operations. 

84. In the NPRM, we also propose 

various other changes in parts 1 and 22 

of the Commission’s rules that apply to 

Cellular Service licensees. For example, 

we propose to streamline the 

application requirements for site-based 

Unserved Area applications, notably 

§ 22.953 (deleting certain technical data 

requirements that, going forward, we 

believe will no longer be routinely 

necessary). We also propose to delete 

provisions that we believe are obsolete 

going forward, such as those requiring 

certifications associated with cessation 

of analog service, often referred to as the 

‘‘analog sunset.’’ Here too, our proposals 

are consistent with the Commission’s 

regulatory reform agenda and its Data 

Innovation Initiative. The proposed 

rules are set forth in Appendix E and we 

encourage all interested parties to 

review them carefully and comment on 

them with specificity. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

85. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance rather than design 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof 

for small entities. 

86. The NPRM discusses several 

alternatives to the proposed two-stage 

transition. These include, for example, 

alternatives that would entail transition 

via auction in more than two stages as 

well as possible exemption for certain 

extremely rural markets such as Alaskan 

markets and others with special buildout challenges. The NPRM also 

discusses proposals put forth by 

industry stakeholders thus far in this 

proceeding, including an approach that 

would not entail competitive bidding. 

The NPRM specifically invites 

interested parties to comment on these 

various alternatives and to suggest other 

alternative proposals. At this time, the 

Commission has not excluded any 

alternative proposal from its 

consideration, but it would do so in this 

proceeding if the record indicates that a 

particular proposal would have a 

significant and unjustifiable adverse 

economic impact on small entities. 

87. The Commission believes that the 

proposed transition to a geographic-area 

licensing system for the Cellular Service 

in two stages via auction will benefit all 

Cellular incumbents and entrants, 

regardless of size. The proposed scheme 

would put Cellular licensees on a 

regulatory par with other wireless 

licensees that hold geographic area 

licenses, such as PCS and certain AWS 

licensees, thus easing the regulatory 

burden of compliance by eliminating 

discrepancies in competing services. 

The Commission has historically valued 

harmonization in the rules for wireless 

licensees by eliminating burdensome 

requirements, as appropriate. 

Furthermore, we anticipate that the 

modernized licensing scheme will 

encourage Cellular licensees to invest in 

and deploy ever more advanced 

technologies as they evolve. By reducing 

the paperwork burden on Cellular 

providers, we would also expect their 

resulting lower costs to have some 

positive effect on the rates paid by 

subscriber groups, including small 

businesses that rely on Cellular service. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15678 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

88. This document contains potential 

new and modified information 

collection requirements. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and OMB to 

comment on the potential information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

89. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 

302, 303, 308, 309(j), and 332 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

301, 302, 303, 308, 309(j), and 332, this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Order are hereby adopted. 

90. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 303, 

308, and 309 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i), 301, 303, 308, and 309, that 

effective as of the date of the adoption 

of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

and Order, THE FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

WILL NOT ACCEPT FOR FILING ANY 

APPLICATIONS for licenses in the 

Cellular Band that are inconsistent with 

the terms of the application freeze 

discussed herein. This suspension is 

effective until further notice and applies 

to any such applications received on or 

after the date of adoption of this Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking and Order. 

91. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the 

proposed regulatory changes described 

in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

and that comment is sought on these 

proposals. 

92. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, SHALL SEND a 

copy of this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Order, including the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Communications common 

carriers, Radio, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Telecommunications. 

47 CFR Part 22 

Communications common carriers, 

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rural areas. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 1 and 22 as follows: 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 

151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), 

and 309. 

§ 1.919 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 1.919 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (c). 

3. Amend § 1.929 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1), removing and 

reserving paragraph (b)(3), and adding 

paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 1.929 Classification of filings as major or 

minor. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Request for an authorization or an 

amendment to a pending application 

that would expand the Cellular 

Geographic Service Area (CGSA) of an 

existing cellular system or, in the case 

of an amendment, as previously 

proposed in an application, in a CMA 

Block that has not been included in an 

auction for Cellular Overlay 

Authorizations under § 22.985. 

* * * * * 

(4) Request for a Cellular Overlay 

Authorization. See § 22.985. 

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 1.958 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 1.958 Distance computation. 

* * * * * 

(d) Calculate the number of kilometers 

per degree of longitude difference for 

the mean geodetic latitude calculated in 

paragraph (b) of this section as follows: 

KPDlon = 111.41513 cos ML ¥ 0.09455 

cos 3ML + 0.00012 cos 5ML 

* * * * * 

PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES 

5. The authority citation for part 22 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 

332. 

6. Amend § 22.99 by: 

a. Removing the definitions ‘‘Buildout transmitters,’’ ‘‘Extension,’’ ‘‘Five 

year build-out period,’’ and ‘‘Partitioned 

cellular market’’; 

b. Revising the definitions ‘‘Cellular 

Geographic Service Area,’’ and 

‘‘Cellular markets’’; and 

c. Revising the term ‘‘Unserved areas’’ 

to read ‘‘Unserved Area’’ and revising 

the first sentence of its definition; 

d. Adding definitions ‘‘Cellular areabased authorization,’’ ‘‘Cellular 

Licensed Area,’’ ‘‘Cellular Overlay 

Authorization (COA),’’ ‘‘Cellular 

Overlay Licensee,’’ ‘‘Cellular site-based 

authorization,’’ ‘‘CMA Block,’’ and 

‘‘Substantially Licensed CMA Block’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 22.99 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cellular area-based authorization. An 

authorization in the Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service where the 

licensed area is a specified fixed 

geographic area other than a CGSA (e.g., 

a CMA, as in the case of a Cellular 

Overlay Authorization) irrespective of 

the locations and technical parameters 

of base stations (cell sites), in a CMA 

Block included in an auction under 

§ 22.985. 

Cellular Geographic Service Area 

(CGSA). The licensed geographic area, 

determined by the specified locations 

and technical parameters of base 

stations (cell sites) pursuant to the 

procedures set forth in § 22.911, within 

which a cellular system is entitled to 

protection and adverse effects are 

recognized, for the purpose of 

determining whether a petitioner has 

standing, in the Cellular Radiotelephone 

Service. 

Cellular Licensed Area. The 

geographic area within which the 

cellular licensee is permitted to 

transmit, or consent to allow other 

cellular licensees to transmit, 

electromagnetic energy and signals on 

the assigned channel block, in order to 

provide cellular service. 

Cellular Market Area (CMA). A 

standard geographic area used by the 

FCC for administrative convenience in 

the licensing of cellular systems; a more 

recent term for ‘‘cellular market’’ (and 

includes Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(MSAs) and Rural Service Areas 

(RSAs)). See § 22.909. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15679 

Cellular markets (obsolescent). See 

definition for ‘‘Cellular Market Area 

(CMA)’’. 

* * * * * 

Cellular Overlay Authorization (COA). 

A cellular area-based authorization in a 

CMA Block included in an auction 

under § 22.985, where the cellular 

licensed area is the geographic area 

within the CMA boundary (Channel 

Block A or B), subject to the 

requirement to protect incumbent 

licensees’ operations from harmful 

interference under applicable rules. 

Cellular Overlay Licensee. The holder 

of a Cellular Overlay Authorization. 

* * * * * 

Cellular site-based authorization. An 

authorization in the Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service where the 

Cellular Licensed Area is determined by 

the specified locations and technical 

parameters of base stations (cell sites), 

pursuant to the procedures set forth in 

§ 22.911. 

* * * * * 

CMA Block. In the Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service, a CMA 

considered in regard to a specified 

channel block, i.e., either Channel Block 

A or Channel Block B (see § 22.905). 

* * * * * 

Substantially Licensed CMA Block. A 

CMA Block (A or B) where at least 95 

percent of the total land area is Cellular 

Geographic Service Area or which 

contains no contiguous parcel of 

Unserved Area larger than 130 square 

kilometers (50 square miles). 

* * * * * 

Unserved Area. With regard to a 

channel block allocated for assignment 

in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service: 

Geographic area in the District of 

Columbia, or any State, Territory or 

Possession of the United States of 

America that is not within any Cellular 

Geographic Service Area of any cellular 

system authorized to transmit on that 

channel block. * * * 

7. Amend § 22.131 by revising 

paragraphs (c)(3)(iii) and (d)(2)(iv) to 

read as follows: 

§ 22.131 Procedures for mutually 

exclusive applications. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) If all of the mutually exclusive 

applications filed on the earliest filing 

date are applications for initial 

authorization, a 30-day notice and cutoff filing group is used. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) Any application to expand the 

CGSA of a cellular system (as defined in 

§ 22.911) in a CMA Block that has not 

been included in an auction under 

§ 22.985. 

* * * * * 

8. Amend § 22.165 by revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 22.165 Additional transmitters for 

existing systems. 

* * * * * 

(e) Cellular Radiotelephone Service. 

(1) In a CMA Block that has not been 

included in an auction under § 22.985, 

the service area boundaries of the 

additional transmitters, as calculated by 

the method set forth in § 22.911(a), must 

remain within the CGSA; the licensee 

must seek prior approval (using FCC 

Form 601) regarding any transmitters to 

be added under this section that would 

cause a change in the CGSA boundary. 

See § 22.953. 

(2) With regard to an incumbent’s 

CGSA in a CMA Block that has been 

included in an auction under § 22.985, 

the service area boundaries of the 

additional transmitters, as calculated by 

the method set forth in § 22.911(a), must 

remain within the incumbent’s CGSA. 

(3) A Cellular Overlay Licensee is 

permitted to expand into any Unserved 

Area within its licensed CMA Block so 

long as it protects existing cellular 

licensees from harmful interference. 

* * * * * 

§ 22.228 [Removed] 

9. Remove § 22.228. 

10. Revise § 22.901 to read as follows: 

§ 22.901 Cellular service requirements and 

limitations. 

Each cellular system must provide 

either mobile service, fixed service, or a 

combination of mobile and fixed 

service, subject to the requirements, 

limitations and exceptions in this 

section. Mobile service provided may be 

of any type, including two-way 

radiotelephone, dispatch, one-way or 

two-way paging, and personal 

communications services (as defined in 

part 24 of this chapter). Fixed service is 

considered to be primary service, as is 

mobile service. When both mobile and 

fixed services are provided, they are 

considered to be co-primary services. In 

providing cellular service, each cellular 

system may incorporate any technology 

that meets all applicable technical 

requirements in this part. 

11. Revise § 22.909 to read as follows: 

§ 22.909 Cellular market areas (CMAs). 

Cellular market areas (CMAs) are 

standard geographic areas used by the 

FCC for administrative convenience in 

the licensing of cellular systems. CMAs 

comprise Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs). 

All CMAs and the counties they 

comprise are listed in: ‘‘Common Carrier 

Public Mobile Services Information, 

Cellular MSA/RSA Markets and 

Counties,’’ Public Notice, Report No. 

CL–92–40, 6 FCC Rcd 742 (1992). 

(a) MSAs. Metropolitan Statistical 

Areas are 306 areas, including New 

England County Metropolitan Areas and 

the Gulf of Mexico Service Area (water 

area of the Gulf of Mexico, border is the 

coastline), defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget, as modified 

by the FCC. 

(b) RSAs. Rural Service Areas are 428 

areas, other than MSAs, established by 

the FCC. 

§ 22.912 [Removed] 

12. Remove § 22.912. 

§ 22.929 [Removed] 

13. Remove § 22.929. 

14. Revise § 22.946 to read as follows: 

§ 22.946 Construction period for cellular 

systems under site-based authorizations. 

The construction period applicable to 

specific new or modified cellular 

facilities for which a site-based 

authorization is granted is one year, 

beginning on the date the authorization 

is granted. To satisfy this requirement, 

a cellular system must be providing 

service to mobile stations operated by 

subscribers and roamers. The licensee 

must notify the FCC (FCC Form 601) 

after the requirements of this section are 

met. See § 1.946 of this chapter. GMEZ 

cellular systems are not subject to 

construction period requirements. See 

§ 22.950. 

15. Revise § 22.947 to read as follows: 

§ 22.947 Build-out period for CMA Block 

672A (Chambers, TX). 

This rule section applies only to 

cellular systems operating on Channel 

Block A in CMA 672 (Chambers, Texas). 

(a) A licensee that holds the Cellular 

Overlay Authorization for CMA Block 

672A (Chambers, Texas) initially 

awarded via auction (i.e., the CMA 

Block for which cellular service was 

authorized solely under interim 

operating authority prior to the Stage I 

auction described in § 22.985) must be 

providing signal coverage and offering 

service over at least 35 percent of the 

geographic area of the CMA Block 

within four years of the grant of the 

authorization, and over at least 70 

percent of the geographic area of its 

license authorization by the end of the 

license term. In applying this 

geographic benchmark, the licensee is to 

count total land area. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15680 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(b) The licensee must notify the FCC 

(FCC Form 601) after the requirements 

of this section are met and must include 

with its notification(s) GIS map files and 

other supporting documents showing 

compliance with the construction 

requirement. See § 1.946 of this chapter. 

See also § 22.953. 

(c) Failure to meet the requirements in 

this section by the deadline will result 

in automatic termination of the 

authorization and such licensee will be 

ineligible to regain it. 

16. Revise § 22.948 to read as follows: 

§ 22.948 Geographic partitioning and 

spectrum disaggregation. 

Cellular licensees may apply to 

partition their cellular licensed area or 

to disaggregate their licensed spectrum 

at any time following the grant of their 

authorization(s). Parties seeking 

approval for partitioning and 

disaggregation shall request from the 

FCC an authorization for partial 

assignment of a license pursuant to 

§ 1.948 of this chapter. See also 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

(a) Partitioning. Applicants must file 

FCC Form 603 pursuant to § 1.948 of 

this chapter. The filing must include the 

attachments required under § 22.953, 

including GIS map files and a reducedsize PDF map, for both the assignor and 

the assignee. 

(1) Within a CMA Block that has not 

yet been included in an auction under 

§ 22.985, partitioning of a CGSA must be 

on a site-by-site basis; i.e., the 

partitioned area must comprise only the 

area resulting from one or more cell 

sites pursuant to § 22.911. At least one 

entire cell site must be partitioned. If all 

cell sites are assigned, it is not 

partitioning, but rather a full assignment 

of authorization. 

(2) Partitioning of the licensed area of 

a cellular area-based authorization 

(including, e.g., the licensed area of a 

Cellular Overlay Authorization) to a 

licensee in a CMA Block that has not yet 

been included in an auction under 

§ 22.985 must be on a site-by-site basis; 

i.e., the partitioned area must comprise 

CGSA resulting from one or more cell 

sites pursuant to § 22.911. 

(3) Partitioning of the licensed area of 

a cellular area-based authorization 

within the same CMA Block that has 

been included in an auction under 

§ 22.985, or to a licensee in another 

CMA Block that has also been included 

in such an auction (including, e.g., the 

partitioning of a Cellular Overlay 

Authorization area by one Cellular 

Overlay Licensee to another Cellular 

Overlay Licensee), may involve any 

proportion of division. If all of the 

licensed area is assigned, it is not 

partitioning, but rather a full assignment 

of authorization. 

(b) Disaggregation. Spectrum may be 

disaggregated in any amount. 

(c) Combined partitioning and 

disaggregation. The FCC will consider 

requests for partial assignment of 

licenses that propose combinations of 

partitioning and disaggregation. 

(d) Field strength limit. For purposes 

of partitioning and disaggregation, 

cellular systems must be designed so as 

not to exceed a median field strength 

level of 40 dBmV/m at or beyond the 

boundary of the Cellular Licensed Area, 

unless all affected adjacent service area 

licensees agree to a different signal 

level. See § 22.983. 

(e) License term. The license term for 

a partitioned license area and for 

disaggregated spectrum will be the 

remainder of the original license term. 

(f) Spectrum Leasing. Cellular 

spectrum leasing is subject to the 

provisions of paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(3), (b), and (c) of this section, except 

that applicants must file FCC Form 608 

(not FCC Form 603), as well as all 

applicable provisions of subpart X of 

part 1 of this chapter. 

17. Revise § 22.949 to read as follows: 

§ 22.949 Unserved Area licensing process 

for site-based systems. 

This section sets forth the process for 

licensing Unserved Area in CMA Blocks 

not yet included in an auction pursuant 

to § 22.985. The licensing process in this 

§ 22.949 allows eligible parties to apply 

for any Unserved Area that remains in 

such CMA Blocks. 

(a) The Unserved Area licensing 

process described in this section is ongoing and applications may be filed at 

any time, until the CMA Block is 

included in an auction pursuant to 

§ 22.985. 

(b) There is no limit to the number of 

Unserved Area applications that may be 

granted on each CMA Channel Block 

that remains subject to the procedures of 

this section. Consequently, such 

Unserved Area applications are 

mutually exclusive only if the proposed 

CGSAs would overlap. Mutually 

exclusive applications are processed 

using the general procedures in 

§ 22.131. See also § 22.961. 

(c) Unserved Area applications under 

this section may propose a CGSA 

covering more than one CMA. Each 

such Unserved Area application must 

request authorization for only one 

CGSA. 

(d) Settlements among some, but not 

all, applicants with mutually exclusive 

applications for Unserved Area (partial 

settlements) under this section are 

prohibited. Settlements among all 

applicants with mutually exclusive 

applications under this section (full 

settlements) are allowed and must be 

filed no later than the date that the FCC 

Form 175 (short-form) is filed. 

18. Amend § 22.950 by revising 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 22.950 Provision of service in the Gulf of 

Mexico Service Area (GMSA). 

* * * * * 

(c) Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone 

(GMEZ). GMEZ licensees have an 

exclusive right to provide cellular 

service in the GMEZ, and may add, 

modify, or remove facilities anywhere 

within the GMEZ without prior FCC 

approval. There is no Unserved Area 

licensing procedure for the GMEZ. 

(d) Gulf of Mexico Coastal Zone 

(GMCZ). The GMCZ is subject to the 

Unserved Area licensing procedure set 

forth in § 22.949. 

19. Revise § 22.953 to read as follows: 

§ 22.953 Content and form of applications 

for cellular authorizations. 

Applications for authority to operate 

a new cellular system or to modify an 

existing cellular system must comply 

with the specifications in this section. 

(a) New Systems. In addition to 

information required by subparts B and 

D of this part and by FCC Form 601, 

applications for a site-based 

authorization to operate a cellular 

system must comply with all applicable 

requirements set forth in part 1 of this 

chapter, including the requirements 

specified in §§ 1.913, 1.923, and 1.924, 

and must include the information listed 

below, in numbered exhibits. 

Geographical coordinates must be 

correct to ±1 second using the NAD 83 

datum. 

(1) Exhibit I—Geographic Information 

System (GIS) map files. The FCC will 

specify the file format required for the 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

map files that are to be submitted 

electronically via the Universal 

Licensing System (ULS). In addition to 

GIS map files submitted electronically, 

the FCC reserves the right to request a 

full-size paper map from the applicant. 

The scale of the full-size paper map 

must be 1:500,000, regardless of 

whether any different scale is used for 

the reduced-size PDF map required in 

Exhibit II. In addition to the information 

required for the GIS map files, the paper 

map, if requested, must include all the 

information required for the reducedsize PDF map (see paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section). 

(2) Exhibit II—Reduced-size PDF map. 

This map must be 81⁄2 × 11 inches (if 

possible, a proportional reduction of a 

1:500,000 scale map). The map must 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15681 

have a legend, a distance scale and 

correctly labeled latitude and longitude 

lines. The map must be clear and 

legible. The map must accurately show 

the cell sites (transmitting antenna 

locations), the service area boundaries 

of additional and modified cell sites, the 

entire CGSA, extensions of the 

composite service area beyond the 

CGSA (see § 22.911), and the relevant 

portions of the CMA boundary. 

(3) Exhibit III—Antenna Information. 

In addition, upon request by an 

applicant, licensee, or the FCC, a 

cellular applicant or licensee of whom 

the request is made shall furnish the 

antenna type, model, the name of the 

antenna manufacturer, antenna gain in 

the maximum lobe, the beam width of 

the maximum lobe of the antenna, a 

polar plot of the horizontal gain pattern 

of the antenna, antenna height to tip 

above ground level, the height of the 

center of radiation of the antenna above 

the average terrain, the height of the 

antenna center of radiation above the 

average elevation of the terrain along 

each of the 8 cardinal radials, the 

maximum effective radiated power, and 

the electric field polarization of the 

wave emitted by the antenna when 

installed as proposed to the requesting 

party within ten (10) days of receiving 

written notification. 

(4) through (10) [Reserved]. 

(11) Additional information. The FCC 

may request information not specified 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section as necessary to process an 

application. 

(b) Existing systems: major and minor 

modifications. Licensees making major 

modifications pursuant to § 1.929(a) and 

(b) of this chapter, and licensees making 

minor modifications pursuant to 

§ 1.929(k) of this chapter, must file FCC 

Form 601 and comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(c) [Reserved]. 

§ 22.960 [Removed] 

20. Remove § 22.960. 

21. Add § 22.961 to read as follows: 

§ 22.961 Cellular licenses subject to 

competitive bidding. 

The following mutually exclusive 

initial applications for cellular licensed 

area authorizations are subject to 

competitive bidding, and unless 

otherwise provided by this subpart, the 

general competitive bidding procedures 

set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this 

chapter will apply: 

(a) Mutually exclusive initial 

applications for cellular site-based 

authorizations; and 

(b) Mutually exclusive initial 

applications for Cellular Overlay 

Authorizations. 

§§ 22.962 through 22.967 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

22. Remove and Reserve §§ 22.962 

through 22.967. 

§ 22.969 [Removed] 

24. Remove § 22.969. 

25. Add § 22.983 to read as follows: 

§ 22.983 Field strength limit. 

The predicted or measured median 

field strength at any location on or 

beyond the boundary of any Cellular 

Licensed Area must not exceed 40 

dBmV/m, unless the adjacent cellular 

service licensee(s) on the same Channel 

Block agree(s) to a different field 

strength. This value applies to both the 

initially authorized areas and to 

partitioned areas. 

26. Add § 22.985 to read as follows: 

§ 22.985 Geographic area licensing via 

auctions. 

The licensing procedures in this 

section do not apply to any CMA Block 

in the GMSA (see § 22.950). 

(a) Determination of licensing status 

of CMA Blocks. The FCC will determine 

whether each CMA Block is 

Substantially Licensed. A CMA Block 

will be deemed Substantially Licensed 

if, as of a cut-off date established by the 

FCC, either: 

(1) At least 95 percent of the total land 

area in the CMA Block is already 

licensed as CGSA; or 

(2) The CMA Block contains no 

contiguous parcel of Unserved Area that 

is larger than 130 square kilometers (50 

square miles). 

(b) Stage I Auction. Any auction to 

resolve mutually exclusive applications 

filed with respect to CMA Blocks that 

are included in Stage I for the 

assignment of Cellular Overlay 

Authorizations shall be conducted 

pursuant to the procedures set forth in 

part 1, subpart Q of this chapter. Any 

eligible entity may bid in the Stage I 

auction. A CMA Block is eligible to be 

included in the Stage I auction if either: 

(1) The CMA Block is determined by 

the FCC to be Substantially Licensed; or, 

(2) The CMA Block has cellular 

service that has been authorized solely 

under interim operating authority (i.e., 

for which no license has ever been 

issued). 

(c) Stage II Auction. Any auction to 

resolve mutually exclusive applications 

filed with respect to CMA Blocks that 

are included in Stage II for the 

assignment of Cellular Overlay 

Authorizations in such Blocks shall be 

conducted pursuant to the procedures 

set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this 

chapter. Any eligible entity may bid in 

the Stage II auction. 

27. Add § 22.986 to read as follows: 

§ 22.986. Designated Entities. 

(a) Eligibility for small business 

provisions in the Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service. (1) A very 

small business is an entity that, together 

with its controlling interests and 

affiliates, has average annual gross 

revenues not exceeding $3 million for 

the preceding three years. 

(2) A small business is an entity that, 

together with its controlling interests 

and affiliates, has average annual gross 

revenues not exceeding $15 million for 

the preceding three years. 

(3) An entrepreneur is an entity that, 

together with its controlling interests 

and affiliates, has average annual gross 

revenues not exceeding $40 million for 

the preceding three years. 

(b) Bidding credits in the Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service. A winning 

bidder that qualifies as a very small 

business, as defined in this section, or 

a consortium of very small businesses 

may use the bidding credit specified in 

§ 1.2110(f)(2)(i) of this chapter. A 

winning bidder that qualifies as a small 

business, as defined in this section, or 

a consortium of small businesses may 

use the bidding credit specified in 

§ 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter. A 

winning bidder that qualifies as an 

entrepreneur, as defined in this section, 

or a consortium of entrepreneurs may 

use the bidding credit specified in 

§ 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this chapter. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5689 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

48 CFR Parts 2401, 2402, 2403, 2404, 

2406, 2407, 2409, 2415, 2416, 2417, 

2419, 2426, 2427, 2428, 2432, 2437, 

2439, 2442, and 2452 

[Docket No FR–5571–P–01] 

RIN 2501–AD56 

Amendments to the HUD Acquisition 

Regulation (HUDAR) 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Procurement 

Officer, HUD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend the HUDAR to implement 

miscellaneous changes. These changes 

include, for example, such amendments 

as removing provisions that are now 

obsolete, refining provisions to approve 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS