Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to the Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Relocation of Part 24 to Part 27 Interim Restrictions and Procedures for Cellular Service Applications ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WT Docket No. 12-40 RM No. 11510 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND ORDER Adopted: February 15, 2012 Released: February 15, 2012 Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) Reply Comment Date: (90 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners McDowell and Clyburn issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 5 A. Cellular Licensing History............................................................................................................... 5 B. CTIA Proposals and Industry Comments on the Record ................................................................. 9 III. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ........................................................................................ 19 A. Stage I Transition........................................................................................................................... 27 1. Substantially Licensed CMA Blocks....................................................................................... 27 2. Interim Operating Authority Block (Chambers, Texas, Block A – CMA 672A).................... 33 B. Stage II Transition.......................................................................................................................... 36 C. Performance Requirements............................................................................................................ 40 D. Competitive Bidding Procedures ................................................................................................... 46 E. Gulf of Mexico Service Area......................................................................................................... 52 F. Signal Field Strength Limit Proposal............................................................................................. 54 G. Other Alternatives to the Commission’s Proposed Transition....................................................... 59 H. Proposed Amendments to Rules and Possible Rule Relocation .................................................... 62 1. Proposed Amendments............................................................................................................ 62 a. Transition-related Amendments........................................................................................ 62 b. AMPS-related Data Collection; Other Deletions and Updates ......................................... 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 2 2. Possible Relocation of Part 22 Cellular and Part 24 PCS Rules to Part 27 ............................. 65 3. Proposed Correction of Section 1.958(d) ................................................................................ 66 IV. ORDER................................................................................................................................................. 67 A. Suspension of Certain Filings ........................................................................................................ 67 B. Currently Pending Non-Mutually Exclusive Applications in Covered CMA Blocks.................... 73 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 76 A. Ex Parte Rules – Permit-But-Disclose........................................................................................... 76 B. Comment Period and Procedures................................................................................................... 77 C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis........................................................................................... 79 D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis ........................................................................................... 80 E. Further Information........................................................................................................................ 81 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 82 APPENDIX A – List of Commenters APPENDIX B – Maps Showing Unserved Area in (1) Continental U.S., (2) Alaska APPENDIX C – List of CMA Blocks That Meet “Substantially Licensed” Test APPENDIX D – Maps Showing “Substantially Licensed” CMAs in (1) Block A, (2) Block B APPENDIX E – Proposed Rules APPENDIX F – List of Additional “Covered Blocks” Subject to Certain Interim Filing Restrictions APPENDIX G – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis I. INTRODUCTION 1. Since its inception roughly 30 years ago, the 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone (Cellular) Service has been instrumental in transforming the communications landscape by making mobile services broadly available to the American public.1 For many years, the Cellular Service’s licensing model has helped successfully drive widespread construction and initial service to the public. Today, most Cellular Service markets are almost completely licensed, with only limited unlicensed Cellular Service area remaining. At this advanced stage of the Cellular Service, however, the site-based aspect of this licensing model is yielding diminished returns. As regions have become substantially developed, 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 geographic-based model, which offers greater flexibility and reduced regulatory requirements. Thus, consistent with the Commission’s regulatory reform agenda,2 we propose in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the licensing model for the Cellular Service from a site-based model to a geographic-based approach. 2. Specifically, we propose to issue geographic-area “Overlay Licenses” through competitive bidding, in two stages. Stage I of the transition would include all Cellular Service markets that meet our proposed “Substantially Licensed” test. In this Stage, Overlay Licenses would be offered at auction and site-based licensing would cease in such markets. This is because in markets that have already undergone substantial buildout, the site-based model is of limited utility. The site-based regime would continue, 1 The Cellular service-specific rules are in Part 22, Subpart H. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.900 et seq. Certain Part 1 rules, e.g., those found at 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart F, also apply to the Cellular Service. 2 See, e.g., Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, 2011 WL 5387696 (F.C.C.); Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and Other Uses to Provide Additional Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees, Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 10- 153, RM-11602, 26 FCC Rcd 11614, 11698 (Statement of Chairman Julius Genachowski, noting the Commission’s “regulatory reform agenda, recognizing our ongoing commitment to remove or reform outdated regulations”). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 3 however, in all other Cellular Service markets for a defined period until Stage II of the transition. We propose seven years as the appropriate time period before Stage II is triggered. Our proposal includes continued protection of incumbents from harmful interference throughout all stages of the transition. 3. We also propose to streamline the Cellular Service rules, including, for example, updating application requirements and deleting certain data collection requirements, such as certifications associated with cessation of the former requirement to provide analog service (“analog sunset”). Consistent with our other flexibly licensed services, we propose to establish a signal field strength limit. We seek comment on all aspects of our proposals, and on the alternative proposals discussed in this NPRM, including those of CTIA–The Wireless Association (CTIA),3 the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA),4 The Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG),5 and others on the record.6 4. In anticipation of potential regulatory changes in the Cellular Service, we adopt the companion Order, below. With this Order we impose a freeze on the filing of certain Cellular applications. We also establish interim procedures in the Order regarding currently pending applications. These prudent steps will help ensure a more efficient and orderly rulemaking, consistent with numerous prior Commission actions, while allowing continued expansion of service to consumers in many markets. II. BACKGROUND A. Cellular Licensing History 5. 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 1981.7 The Commission established in phases 734 Cellular Market Areas (CMAs)8 for the purpose of issuing licenses 3 See Petition for Rulemaking submitted by CTIA on Oct. 8, 2008 (CTIA Petition); CTIA September 2010 Ex Parte Filing (a power-point presentation), originally submitted under Cover Letter dated Sept. 21, 2010, with a corrected version submitted under Cover Letter dated Sept. 22, 2010 (CTIA Revised Plan). Throughout this NPRM, references to CTIA’s Revised Plan mean the corrected version of the power-point presentation submitted Sept. 22, 2010. References to the Cover Letter itself will specify either the original Sept. 21, 2010 letter, or the subsequent Sept. 22, 2010 letter, as applicable. Subsequently, CTIA filed several other Ex Parte letters. See Appendix A. 4 See NTCA Comments filed Feb. 23, 2009. 5 See RTG Comments filed Feb. 23, 2009; Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary of the Commission, dated Nov. 8, 2010, from Caressa D. Bennet et al., Attorneys for RTG (RTG Letter Response). 6 The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the CTIA Petition. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Petition for Rulemaking to Transition Part 22 Cellular Services to Geographic Market-Area Licensing, Public Notice, RM No. 11510, 24 FCC Rcd 27 (WTB 2009) (Public Notice). A complete list of all commenters on the record is provided in Appendix A. The proposals and comments on the record are discussed below in Section II.B. 7 See generally An Inquiry Into the Use of the Bands 825-845 MHz and 870-890 MHz for Cellular Communications Systems; and Amendment of Parts 2 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules Relative to Cellular Communications Systems, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 79-318, 86 F.C.C.2d 469 (1981). 8 The 734 CMAs comprise 306 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and 428 Rural Service Areas (RSAs). A complete listing is provided in the following notice: Common Carrier Public Mobile Services Information, Cellular MSA/RSA Markets and Counties, Public Notice, Rep. No. CL-92-40, 6 FCC Rcd 742 (1992), cited in 47 C.F.R. § 22.909. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 4 to two Cellular providers per market (herein, “Original System Licensees” (OSLs)),9 one on each Block, without competitive bidding. Every OSL was given the exclusive right, for a five-year period from the date of grant of the initial construction authorization for that CMA Block, to build out anywhere within the CMA boundary.10 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,11 while any area not built out by the five-year mark (Unserved Area) was automatically relinquished for re-licensing on a site-by-site basis by the Commission.12 Under site-based licensing, the applicant requests authorization to construct at a specific transmitter location (or multiple locations) in Unserved Area,13 and may only construct authorized transmitters. For all CMA Blocks except one (Chambers, Texas),14 licenses have been issued to OSLs and the initial five-year periods have expired.15 6. The Commission established two phases for applicants seeking to provide Cellular service in Unserved Area for each CMA Block: Phase I and Phase II.16 As of late 2007, the Phase I filing window had ended in all licensed Blocks.17 Under current rules, Phase II lasts indefinitely.18 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.19 Licenses granted in Phase II are subject to a one-year construction deadline for the 9 In this NPRM, we use the terms Original System Licensee and OSL and define them to include also the successors- in-interest, transferees, and assignees of the actual party that was initially authorized to construct the first Cellular system on Block A or B in a particular CMA. 10 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 22.947. 11 See 47 C.F.R. § 22.911(d). See also 47 C.F.R. § 22.907 (obligating licensees to coordinate with each other if their respective transmitters are within a certain proximity, and requiring them to “make reasonable efforts to resolve technical problems”). 12 See 47 C.F.R. 22.911. 13 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.929, 22.953 (specifying the technical and other information to be provided by the applicant). 14 See infra Section III.A.2. (regarding Block A of the Chambers, TX CMA). 15 By 1990, in some urban markets (MSAs) the initial 5-year period had already ended. The most recently issued OSLs were the result of Auction 45 for the following 3 RSAs (see 47 C.F.R. § 22.969): 332A (Polk, AR); 582A (Barnes, ND); and 727A (Ceiba, PR). Their initial 5-year construction periods expired in September 2007. 16 See 47 C.F.R. § 22.949. 17 Following each OSL’s 5-year build-out period, a 1-day Phase I filing window was opened and closed according to a specified timetable. See 47 C.F.R. § 22.949(a). See Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide for Filing and Processing of Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular Service and to Modify Other Cellular Rules, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 90-6, 7 FCC Rcd 2449, 2457-58 (1992) (1992 Cellular Second R&O) (providing more information about how Phase I filing windows were set and Phase I applications processed). The Phase II Unserved Area application period commenced thereafter (with specific timing dependent on the Phase I process for that particular CMA Block). See 47 C.F.R. § 22.949(b). See also infra Section III.A.2. regarding Block A of the Chambers, TX CMA (explaining why a Phase I window has never been opened for this Block). 18 See 47 C.F.R. § 22.949(b). A minimum coverage requirement of 50 contiguous square miles applies to all applications for Unserved Area, unless submitted by a licensee that wishes to expand its existing Cellular system using Unserved Area. See 47 C.F.R. § 22.951. 19 See 47 C.F.R. § 22.949(b)(2) (citing id. § 22.131). See also id. §§ 22.131(c)(3)(iii) (explaining how mutual exclusivity is determined) and 22.960. The most recent such auction was in 2008. See “Closed Auction of Licenses for Cellular Unserved Service Area Scheduled for June 17, 2008, Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 5 authorized site and the licensee must be providing service to subscribers by the end of the one-year period;20 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.21 7. Both OSLs22 and “Unserved Area Licensees”23 have used the application process for licenses to construct in Unserved Area extensively over the years, as shown by the data presented in Section III below. Cellular licensees have obtained their authorizations primarily through direct application to the Commission without competitive bidding, as there have rarely been competing, mutually exclusive applications.24 In the vast majority of markets, both OSLs and Unserved Area Licensees have had 15 to 20 years (even more in some cases) in which to build or expand their systems through site-based licensing,25 while in most other markets the Unserved Area application process has been available to interested persons for over 10 years. As discussed in Section III below, based on our data, only limited Unserved Area remains outside of Alaska and certain rural markets in the western United States. 8. In contrast to site-based licensing, geographic-based licensing generally authorizes construction anywhere within a particular geographic area’s boundary (subject to certain interference protection and other technical requirements) and does not entail applications for prior Commission approval of specific transmitter locations. 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 the Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS),26 the Advanced Wireless Service (AWS),27 and the 700 MHz Service.28 In these radio services, the existing incumbents (e.g., microwave, government, and broadcasters) were to be relocated. In other commercial (Continued from previous page) Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 77,” Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 6670 (WTB 2008). 20 See 47 C.F.R. § 22.946. 21 See 47 C.F.R. § 22.949(b). 22 The existing rules permit OSLs to submit Unserved Area applications to modify their systems following their initial 5-year build-out periods, subject to the same 1-year build-out requirement as any other applicant for Unserved Area. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.946, 22.949. 23 We use the term “Unserved Area Licensee” to mean a licensee that has established a Cellular system in a particular market solely through the Unserved Area application process – Phase I and/or Phase II – after the expiration of the OSL’s 5-year initial build-out period. As noted above, OSLs also use the Unserved Area application process to modify their systems. 24 United States Cellular Corporation, for example, states that it filed 54 Unserved Area applications in the 9 years before filing comments in this proceeding, and not one was met by a competing application. See USCC Comments filed Feb. 23, 2009 at 3. Commnet Wireless, LLC similarly states that its applications have rarely been challenged by a mutually exclusive application. See Commnet Comments filed Feb. 23, 2009 at 13. 25 By July 1989, the initial filing period for all MSAs (not RSAs) had essentially been completed, and for some MSAs, the initial 5-year period was already nearing its end. See, e.g., Amendment of the Commission’s Rules for Rural Cellular Service, Order on Reconsideration of Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 85-388, 4 FCC Rcd 5377, 5380-81 (1989). 26 See Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Second Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 90-314, 8 FCC Rcd 7700, 7753-54 (1993). 27 See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, Order on Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 02-353, 20 FCC Rcd 14058 (2005). 28 See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), Report and Order, GN Docket No. 01-74, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2002). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 6 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 Service,29 the 220 MHz service,30 and the 929-931 MHz Paging Services.31 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. B. CTIA Proposals and Industry Comments on the Record 9. 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.32 In response to the Public Notice seeking comment on CTIA’s Petition,33 10 parties filed comments,34 six (including CTIA) filed reply comments,35 and two (including CTIA) filed ex parte letters.36 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.”37 Thus far, only RTG has filed comments specifically addressing the CTIA Revised Plan.38 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.39 Subsequently, 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.40 29 See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, First Report and Order; Eighth Report and Order; Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, PR Docket No. 93-144, 11 FCC Rcd 1463, 1474 (1995). 30 See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio Service, Third Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 10943 (1997). 31 See Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 2732 (1997). 32 See generally CTIA Petition. 33 See Public Notice, supra note 6. 34 See Appendix A. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 CTIA Revised Plan, Cover Letter dated Sept. 21, 2010. A key difference between CTIA’s Petition and its Revised Plan is that, in the former, CTIA appears to be proposing a transition for all CMA Blocks at the same time, while in the latter, it appears to be proposing a rolling transition, market by market, as each Block reaches CTIA’s “Fully Served” benchmark. 38 See RTG Letter Response, supra note 5. 39 See Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary of the Commission, dated May 20, 2011, from Brian M. Josef, Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA; Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary of the Commission, dated May 19, 2011, from Paul Margie, Counsel for GCI; Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary of the Commission, dated May 23, 2011, filed by Jill Canfield, Director, Legal & Industry, NTCA (on behalf of NTCA and RTG). 40 See Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary of the Commission (Secretary Dortch), dated Feb. 2, 2012, from Brian M. Josef, Assistant Vice President – Regulatory Affairs, CTIA (Mr. Josef) (documenting a meeting of (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 7 10. CTIA argues that the existing site-based rules are “antiquated and administratively burdensome”41 for both licensees and FCC staff because the rules require the filing of an application every time a licensee seeks to make even a minor system modification.42 For example, under the current licensing paradigm, a Cellular licensee making any system change that would expand or decrease its CGSA must file an application with comprehensive engineering data and technical exhibits, and for CGSA expansions, no matter how small, must receive Commission approval prior to commencing operations.43 CTIA explains that Cellular site-based licensing “has remained a unique anomaly,” as competing commercial wireless services are licensed based on market areas rather than transmitter sites.44 In CTIA’s view, site-based licensing is no longer necessary to encourage build-out in markets with minimal remaining Unserved Area and actually hampers the ability of licensees to expand and provide additional coverage.45 CTIA states that site-based licensing requires constant updating and revision, imposes significant costs on licensees, and is based upon an analog technical model with little relationship to the current deployment of digital services to the public.46 11. In its Revised Plan, CTIA requests that the Commission change the Cellular Service to geographic area-based licensing and terminate site-based access to Unserved Area in each CMA Block that is “Fully Served.” CTIA defines a Fully Served Block as one where either: (1) 90% of the total land area is served; or (2) there is no parcel of Unserved Area measuring at least 50 contiguous square miles.47 Under both prongs, CTIA proposes to exclude “government lands, but not tribal areas.”48 All Unserved Area in Fully Served Blocks would be assigned to existing incumbents “on a proportional basis” without the use of competitive bidding.49 CTIA does not propose performance requirements regarding these areas. CTIA estimates that 91% of all Blocks meet its “90% served” test.50 So long as a CMA Block is “under-served” (i.e., not Fully Served), CTIA proposes that it remain under site-based licensing rules.51 12. CTIA’s Revised Plan entails the establishment of fixed license boundaries for all incumbents (Continued from previous page) representatives of CTIA, AT&T and Verizon Wireless with Amy Levine, Sr. Legal Advisor to Chairman Genachowski) (Feb. 2, 2012 CTIA Ex Parte (Levine)); Letter to Secretary Dortch, dated Feb. 2, 2012, from Mr. Josef (documenting a meeting of representatives of CTIA, AT&T and Verizon Wireless with Louis Peraertz, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Clyburn) (Feb. 2, 2012 CTIA Ex Parte (Peraertz)). See also Letter to Secretary Dortch, dated Feb. 8, 2012, from Mr. Josef (documenting a meeting of CTIA representatives with Angela Giancarlo, Chief of Staff and Sr. Legal Advisor to Commissioner McDowell) (Feb. 8, 2012 CTIA Ex Parte (Giancarlo)); Letter to Secretary Dortch, dated Jan. 24, 2012, from Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President – Regulatory Affairs, CTIA (documenting a voice message left for Roger Noel, Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC) (CTIA January 2012 Ex Parte (Noel)). 41 CTIA Revised Plan at 2. 42 Id. 43 See 47 C.F.R. § 22.953. 44 CTIA Petition at 2. 45 CTIA Revised Plan at 3. 46 See CTIA Petition at 1-2. 47 See, e.g., CTIA Revised Plan at 8. 48 Id. 49 Id. at 9. 50 Id. at 4. 51 Id. at 8. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 8 in all CMA Blocks based on existing CGSAs, to be documented by certain specified submissions.52 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.53 Once fixed boundaries were established, licensees would be permitted to add and modify transmitter sites within those boundaries without applications or notification, subject to a 40 dBuV/m median field strength limit,54 as first proposed by Verizon Wireless.55 In non-Fully Served Blocks, licensees wishing to expand beyond their established fixed boundaries would need to submit a major modification application for Unserved Area, as under current rules.56 13. In support of CTIA’s Petition, AT&T asserts, among other things, that changing from analog to digital operations has rendered site-based Cellular licensing obsolete, unnecessarily burdensome, and inefficient and that geographic-area licensing will create regulatory parity among competing services.57 Verizon Wireless also generally endorses the CTIA Petition58 but makes various additional proposals, including: (1) a staggered transition process based on regional groupings of CMA Blocks; (2) the provision of public notice of, and opportunity to comment on, claimed licensed area boundaries (i.e., existing CGSAs, including CGSA extensions into adjacent CMAs); and (3) 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.59 14. In contrast, commenters representing the interests of smaller and rural providers60 generally favor indefinite retention of the current site-based licensing regime.61 RTG, for example, “continues to believe that there should be no sunset” of this licensing model, as rural carriers still file site-based applications to serve “remote areas or areas with low population density.”62 NTCA, the Rural 52 Id. at 5-7 (proposing, however, to exempt the Gulf region, see id. at 1). 53 Id. at 7, 9. 54 Id. at 5. 55 See Verizon Wireless Comments filed Feb. 23, 2009 at 5. See also RTG Comments at 7 (supporting the concept of a field strength limit but not proposing a specific limit for the Cellular Service); United States Cellular Corporation Comments at 1, 4 (same). 56 See CTIA Revised Plan at 5. 57 See generally AT&T Comments filed Feb. 23, 2009. AT&T did not file comments specifically responding to CTIA’s Revised Plan. 58 See generally Verizon Wireless Comments. Verizon Wireless did not file comments specifically responding to CTIA’s Revised Plan. 59 Verizon Wireless Comments at 6-7 (suggesting as one possibility a “land area or population variation of 5% or less” as a de minimis threshold). Commnet objects particularly to Verizon Wireless's de minimis proposal, arguing it would allow a licensee to claim additional area “even if it lies within a co-channel licensee’s licensed CGSA, so long as the area . . . is no more than five percent . . . of the victimized licensee’s licensed CGSA.” Commnet Reply Comments filed Mar. 9, 2009 at 6 (emphasis in original). 60 For purposes of this NPRM, these rural commenters comprise Commnet Wireless, LLC; GCI; NTCA; the Rural Independent Competitive Alliance; and RTG. 61 See generally Comments and (if applicable) Reply Comments filed Mar. 9, 2009 by Commnet; GCI; NTCA; RICA; and RTG. See also the Comments filed Feb. 9, 2009 by Broadpoint, Inc. regarding the Gulf region (discussed infra Section III.E). 62 RTG Letter Response at 1-2. See also RTG Comments at 3 (stating that, just as large PCS carriers “have little or no incentive to geographically partition their licenses to smaller carriers that would like to provide service to the (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 9 Independent Competitive Alliance (RICA), Commnet Wireless, LLC (Commnet), and GCI essentially agree.63 NTCA also 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.64 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.65 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.66 RTG also 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.”67 15. Comments by 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.68 RICA, GCI, and NTCA make similar arguments.69 Several of these commenters are also skeptical of CTIA’s proposed mechanisms for resolving disputes that may arise between adjacent licensees concerning license boundaries.70 United States Cellular Corporation (USCC), a mid-sized non-rural carrier, argues that a voluntary consultation process is unworkable for dispute resolution without legal standards.71 16. USCC generally favors the existing regime but states that issuance of a CMA-based license may be appropriate in limited circumstances. Such circumstances might include where the existing (Continued from previous page) more rural and underserved areas,” the Commission will have the same result here if Cellular site-based licensing is abolished). 63 See NTCA Comments at 2-3 (stating that OSLs, which have had many years to build out, “should not now receive the exclusive rights to territory they do not serve and may not intend to serve”); RICA Comments at 1, 6 (extolling the efficacy of site-based licensing, stating that RICA members “are willing to commit to the provision of service that the [OSL] has not provided”). See generally Commnet Comments; see also GCI Comments at 3 (contending that the existing regime continues to advance the Commission’s goal of promoting “a seamless and integrated nationwide cellular service, so that subscribers can receive high quality cellular service throughout the nation”). 64 NTCA Comments at 3. 65 Commnet Comments at 3-4 (highlighting the frequent need to coordinate with National Park personnel, tribal historic preservation officials, and state environmental officials in determining where to construct and how to connect remote cell sites back to the PSTN), and at 13. 66 GCI Comments at 9-10 (praising site-based Cellular licensing as the “longest-standing program to encourage . . . investment in wireless technologies”). 67 RTG Letter Response at 3. 68 RTG Comments at 3 n.2. 69 See RICA Comments at 10 (stating that excluding modification applications “grossly understate[s] . . . filings and the resulting instances of service area expansion” and that, during the same period measured by CTIA, 973 modification applications were filed and 749 were granted); GCI Reply Comments at 5; NTCA Comments at 2. 70 See, e.g., RTG Comments at 7 (arguing that the large carriers have disproportionate bargaining power), and RTG Letter Response at 3 (also rejecting CTIA’s suggestion that non-contractual disputes such as disputes over distribution of Unserved Area among incumbents could be brought before an arbitrator for resolution in the first place); Commnet Comments at 15 (characterizing the proposal as a “recipe for arbitrary and unfair decisions”). 71 See USCC Reply Comments at 4. See also Comments of MetroPCS Communications, Inc. filed Feb. 23, 2009 (a mid-size commercial wireless licensee that does not hold licenses in the Cellular Service), at 6-9. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 10 incumbent’s CGSA already “encompasses virtually the entire market” or where no one other than an OSL “has sought and obtained a [site-based] license during the eighteen years such licenses have been available.”72 USCC argues that site-based licensing should be retained, however, at least in any market with at least one Unserved Area Licensee, so that OSLs and Unserved Area Licensees have equal opportunity to expand their systems.73 17. 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. 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.74 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.”75 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.”76 In response to these alternative ideas, Verizon Wireless states that preserving site-based licensing should be limited to areas greater than 50 square miles, with smaller areas “added to the new market-based license area” of the OSL, while AT&T merely states that it is open to “mechanisms to address” Unserved Area in the new Cellular licensing scheme.77 18. Commenters differ on the issue of how to assign geographic area licenses. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (MetroPCS) advocates a transition to geographic-area licensing via auction.78 In response, USCC argues that an auction is unnecessary in light of the existing normal closed auction process for mutually exclusive Unserved Area applications.79 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.”80 Subsequently in early 2012, CTIA, AT&T and Verizon 72 USCC Reply Comments at 3. See also USCC Comments at 4. 73 USCC Comments at 5-6. See also USCC Reply Comments at 3. 74 GCI Comments at 6. 75 NTCA Comments at 4. NTCA adds that, prior to the Commission’s issuance of the new licenses, each licensee should be required to document its “current, actual service territory.” Id. at 3-4. NTCA further proposes that interested parties should be given an opportunity to challenge the licensee’s coverage showing and that if a party could “conclusively show that an incumbent is not actually serving territory that it claims within its coverage area, the disputed territory would be deemed unserved and parties would have an opportunity to file competing applications.” Id. at 4. 76 See RTG Letter Response at 1 (stating that RTG “was never contacted by CTIA to discuss its Revised . . . Plan and has not agreed to support that plan”). RTG also expresses concerns (see id.) about CTIA’s proposal to establish a field strength limit. We discuss a proposed signal field strength limit below in Section III.F. 77 Verizon Wireless Reply Comments at 5; AT&T Reply Comments at 6. 78 See, e.g., MetroPCS Comments at 2 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(c)), arguing that the Commission must comply with “the Congressional mandate for competitive bidding for the allocation of commercial broadband spectrum”). Noting CTIA’s argument that the Commission should accord similar services similar regulatory treatment, MetroPCS also argues that CTIA’s non-auction approach treats the Cellular transition “in a different and much more incumbent-friendly fashion than any of the other licensing transitions the Commission has effected.” See id. at 9. 79 See USCC Reply Comments at 3 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.131 and 22.949(b)(2), and noting that such closed auctions “have seldom proven necessary”). 80 AT&T Reply Comments at 7. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 11 Wireless met with Commission staff, and CTIA filed Ex Parte letters accordingly. These letters state that CTIA, AT&T and Verizon Wireless have “concerns with a proposal that would apply an ‘overlay auction’ mechanism, possibly implemented as part of a transition from site-based to geographic licensing, for use in areas that are not substantially served,” without explaining the nature of the concerns.81 Commnet does not advocate a transition via auction, but emphasizes that the Commission used competitive bidding in prior transitions to geographic area licensing.82 All other commenters are silent on using an auction for a Cellular licensing transition.83 III. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 19. This NPRM proposes to eliminate burdensome and time-consuming regulatory processes and to provide licensees with more flexibility to build out and provide service in areas that are currently unlicensed in the Cellular Service. 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 geographic-based 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 PCS,84 the 700 MHz Service,85 and AWS.86 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. 20. The current site-based licensing model has proven successful over time, as the Cellular Service has achieved widespread construction and service to the public. In anticipation of releasing this NPRM, the Commission has undertaken the task of digitizing87 all existing CGSAs based on maps accompanying Cellular applications.88 It is clear from our data that the vast majority of CMA Blocks already are substantially built out. Licensees in these markets – which we term “Substantially Licensed” 81 See Feb. 2, 2012 CTIA Ex Parte (Levine) and Feb. 2, 2012 CTIA Ex Parte (Peraertz), supra note 40. See also Feb. 8, 2012 CTIA Ex Parte (Giancarlo) (stating, with respect to this proceeding, that “CTIA . . . raised concerns with a proposal that would apply an ‘overlay auction’ mechanism, possibly implemented as part of a transition from site-based to geographic licenses, for use in areas that are not substantially served”) and CTIA January 2012 Ex Parte (Noel), supra note 40. 82 Commnet Comments at ii, 10. See also id. at 2 (asserting that, because the OSLs did not obtain their spectrum at auction, “none of [them] had any incentive (as do auction winners) to put the spectrum to its highest and best use”). 83 RICA, however, references its filing in a proceeding concerning spectrum caps on commercial terrestrial wireless spectrum below 2.3 GHz (RM No. 11498) and emphasizes its view that “Tier 1 and 2 wireless carriers” should be barred from auctions until the Commission has addressed what RICA describes as Congressional concern about avoiding “excessive concentration of licenses.” RICA Comments at 6-7. 84 See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.1 et seq. 85 See generally 47 C.F.R. Part 27. 86 Id. 87 Using specialized computer software, we created a data set (a discrete set of points along each CGSA boundary) using the CGSA maps on file. These data sets are stored electronically and can be used to generate digital representations of the CGSA maps. They can also be used to calculate Unserved Area and licensed area within a particular CMA Block, and to capture other geographical characteristics of the area of interest. 88 The maps provided at Appendix B summarize our preliminary data. One map shows Unserved Area throughout the continental United States, and the other shows Unserved Area in Alaska. Additional graphics and data are discussed below in Section III.A, B. See also http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-40. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 12 as set forth in Section III.A.1. 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 market-based licensing regimes are simpler to administer for all parties.89 21. We recognize that, with direct access to Unserved Area through site-based licensing, 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.90 We believe that there are public interest benefits of preserving such direct access by all interested parties for any Unserved Area in CMA Blocks that are less substantially built out (i.e., not Substantially Licensed under our proposed test). While site-based 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. 22. 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).91 Under section 309(j)(1),92 with limited exceptions that are not applicable here, the Commission is required to license spectrum through competitive bidding whenever it accepts mutually exclusive applications93 for initial licenses or permits.94 Consistent with the Commission’s policy that competitive 89 See, e.g., Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act and Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 8044 (1994) (establishing Major Trading Areas as the appropriate geographic area for 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Service licensees). 90 See discussion infra Section III.B. 91 Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended, WT Docket No. 99- 87, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 22709 (2000) (BBA Report and Order); 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1) and (2). 92 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1). 93 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. BBA Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 22713, 22714 (citing Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended; Promotion of Spectrum Efficient Technologies on Certain Part 90 Frequencies; Establishment of Public Service Radio Pool in the Private Mobile Frequencies Below 800 MHz, WT Docket No. 99-87, RM-9332, RM-9405, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 5206 (1999)). When 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. Id. 94 BBA Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 22716 ¶ 15. Section 309(j)(2) exempts the following from auction: licenses and construction permits for public safety radio services; digital television service licenses and permits given to existing terrestrial broadcast licensees to replace their analog television service licenses; and licenses and construction permits for noncommercial educational broadcast stations and public broadcast stations as described in Section 397(6) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 13 bidding places licenses in the hands of those that value the spectrum most highly,95 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. 23. In light of the above-described goals and considerations, we propose to issue CMA-based Overlay Licenses for each Block 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.96 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). 24. In Stage I of the transition, 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; 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). The specific benchmarks we propose to apply in determining whether a market is in the Substantially Licensed category, and the underlying data supporting our proposal, are discussed below in Section III.A.1. All other Blocks would remain subject to the existing Unserved Area licensing system until a future date, when we would implement Stage II of the transition and offer Overlay Licenses for these remaining CMA Blocks. We seek comment, as discussed further below, on whether seven years is the appropriate timeframe before initiation of Stage II. Our proposal is discussed in more detail below, in Sections III.A. and B. We seek comment on all aspects of our proposal. 25. We invite comment 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 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.97 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. 26. For reasons explained below, we propose to exempt the Gulf of Mexico Service Area (GMSA) from the transition. In addition, based on certain industry proposals on the record, discussed above, we propose to establish a signal field strength limit for all Cellular licensees in all CMA Blocks. Consistent with both the Commission’s regulatory reform agenda, noted above, and its Data Innovation 95 See, e.g., Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz, ET Docket No. 95-183, RM-8553, PP Docket No. 93-253, 11 FCC Rcd 4930, 4945 (1995). 96 Even if no Unserved Area remains in a particular CMA Block as of the established cut-off date, an Overlay License would be offered via competitive bidding for that Block. 97 See, e.g., 1992 Cellular Second R&O, 7 FCC Rcd 2449, 2450. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 14 Initiative,98 we also take this opportunity to propose additional changes to certain Cellular rules in Parts 1 and Part 22, including updates to provisions such as those governing application requirements, removal of provisions that we consider outdated going forward,99 and ministerial corrections. Finally, we seek comment on whether to move the Part 22 Cellular rules, as well as the Part 24 rules, to Part 27. A. Stage I Transition 1. Substantially Licensed CMA Blocks 27. We propose to treat a CMA Block as Substantially Licensed if either of the following benchmarks is met: (1) at least 95% 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.100 An analysis of Cellular licensed area by Block reflects that only 20% of the 1,468 CMA Blocks are geographically licensed between less than 10% up to roughly 94%. The vast majority of all Blocks (approximately 80%) fall at or above the 95% licensed threshold, representing in our view a logical breaking point for inclusion in Stage I of the proposed transition.101 We also recognize, however, that a Block that has less than 95% 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.102 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.103 28. We list the Blocks that meet our proposed test in Appendix C. 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.104 We also depict our preliminary data in two additional maps provided in Appendix D.105 These maps illustrate, for each Block, which markets appear to meet the proposed test and which markets, while served, do not.106 29. We propose to include total land area without exclusions in our calculation of licensed area and Unserved Area. This contrasts with the Commission’s approach in the 700 MHz Service, where 98 See Press Release, FCC Launches Data Innovation Initiative (rel. Jun. 29, 2010), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299269A1.pdf. See also Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Review of Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices, WC Docket No. 10-132, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 8213 (WCB 2010); Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Review of Wireless Competition Bureau Data Practices, WT Docket No. 10-131, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 8373 (WTB 2010); Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Review of Media Bureau Data Practices, MB Docket No. 10-103, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 8236 (MB 2010). 99 For example, as noted above, we propose to delete the data collection requirements concerning cessation of Cellular analog operations (AMPS). 100 See infra note 102 and accompanying text. 101 See Appendices C and D. Notably, the 80% group represents 51% of the total land mass of all CMAs. 102 See 47 C.F.R. § 22.951. 103 The small number of CMA Blocks in this category does not affect the approximate 80%/20% split between the Stage I and Stage II Blocks under our proposal. 104 These figures regarding Blocks that meet the test do not include the 2 GMSA Blocks. 105 None of the CMA Blocks in Alaska currently meets our proposed test under either benchmark, and therefore no Alaskan Blocks are currently included in Appendix C. 106 The provided maps in Appendix D indicate the date as of which the analysis is accurate. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 15 certain 700 MHz Service licensees were permitted to exclude “government lands” from coverage calculation for purposes of compliance with prospective build-out requirements. In the 700 MHz proceeding, the Commission noted the frequent difficulty of, or specific prohibitions barring, in some instances (e.g., a military base), site access to government lands.107 We propose to treat government lands differently in this Cellular Service transition 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.108 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 what areas are in fact Substantially Licensed for purposes of inclusion in the appropriate transition stage. 30. 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.109 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.110 We believe that auctioning 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. Our Overlay License proposal will facilitate prompt service to such areas through reduced administrative burdens. 31. Under our proposal, just as incumbents that do not become Overlay Licensees would be assured continued protection from harmful interference within their existing CGSA footprint, 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, as under our current rules.111 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 107 See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, Second Report and Order, WT Docket No. 06-150, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15350 (2007). 108 See, e.g., the Reno, NV market digitized CGSA map available at http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-40. 109 See infra note 112 regarding NEPA-triggered filings. 110 See, e.g., Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 96-18, PP Docket No. 93-253, 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2745 (1997) (1997 Paging Services Second R&O); Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40 GHz Bands; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40 GHz, Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 95-183, PP Docket No. 93-253, RM-8553, 12 FCC Rcd 18600, 18637-38 (1997) (1997 39 GHz R&O and Second NPRM). 111 See 47 C.F.R. § 22.948. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 16 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.112 32. 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.113 Under delegated authority, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (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. 2. Interim Operating Authority Block (Chambers, Texas, Block A – CMA 672A) 33. Chambers, Texas (CMA 672A) is the only Block for which a Cellular license has never been issued.114 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 KNKP971.115 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. 34. 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).116 We also propose not to 112 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) (see 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart I, §§ 1.1301 et seq.), would still be required for all licensees. 113 See, e.g., Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service; and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9604 (1995) (1995 MDS R&O) (noting that “MDS is a heavily encumbered service,” with “only small portions . . . unserved” in the majority of the markets and that applicants would need to “carefully ascertain the extent of incumbent operations [as well as] authorized but unconstructed facilities.”). 114 See Cellular Rural Service Areas Auction Scheduled for May 29, 2002, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 4135 (2002); Implementation of Competitive Bidding Rules to License Certain Rural Service Areas, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 01-32, 17 FCC Rcd 1960 (2002) (providing information about the history of this unlicensed Block); Implementation of Competitive Bidding Rules to License Certain Rural Service Areas, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 01-32, 16 FCC Rcd 4269 (2001) (same). 115 See KNKP971 IOA; FCC File No. 0004413839 (granted modification application filed by AT&T Galveston to expand service coverage, see Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-By-Site Action, Public Notice, Rep. No. 6637 (Feb. 23, 2011)). 116 See Appendix E. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 17 apply to Chambers the five-year build-out period that is described in section 22.947117 (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).118 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% of the geographic area of its license authorization within four years of initial license grant and to at least 70% of the geographic area of its license authorization by the end of the license term.119 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.120 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. 35. 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 36. As stated above, based on our preliminary data, approximately 20% 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 new-system applications are filed to a much lesser extent than modification applications in the Blocks that are already substantially built out. This 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. 117 47 C.F.R. § 22.947. For Chambers, as no primary license has been issued, this 5-year period has never commenced. 118 See Appendix E. 119 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.14 (setting forth construction requirements and renewal criteria for, inter alia, 700 MHz licensees). In the case of automatic license termination, the Chambers license would be returned to the Commission’s auction inventory for re-licensing. 120 See, e.g., infra Section III.C. (seeking comment on whether to impose any performance benchmarks or other requirements for Overlay Licenses). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 18 37. 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 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.121 We also ask that commenters address the costs and benefits of a seven-year transition period, or for any alternate proposals set forth. 38. 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. 39. 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 40. 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. 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 area not Substantially Licensed – 20% of the CMA Blocks – the current level of build-out varies significantly, as discussed above, with most above 70% geographic coverage, and a few below 10% geographic coverage (e.g., certain Alaskan CMA Blocks), with the rest somewhere in between.122 41. 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? Should certain categories of CMA Blocks be subject to different benchmarks given varying levels of deployment among the different CMA Blocks across the country? For instance, should they differ with respect to the CMA Blocks included in Stage I, where almost all of the CMA Block has been built out, compared to Stage II, where there is less build-out and more variance among the Blocks? Would it be appropriate to establish build-out requirements that vary depending on the amount of Unserved Area 121 See also infra Section III.G. (seeking comment on alternative transition approaches). 122 See http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-40. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 19 remaining, or for CMA Blocks that face particular construction challenges (e.g., Alaska)? If so, what should those varying requirements be, and on what basis would the requirements apply to specific Blocks, and what would be the costs and benefits of the variation? Would varying requirements be unduly cumbersome? In seeking comment, we note that the Commission has never established performance requirements in similar services mandating 100% build-out of all areas or population centers in a geographic-based license. 42. 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. Our goal in adopting any such requirement would be to help ensure that spectrum does not lie fallow where there is real demand for its use. In exploring such an approach, we recognize that there could be valid reasons why spectrum may remain unused. We also note that, under our existing secondary market policies and rules, many entities have successfully used secondary market transactions—including spectrum leasing, partitioning, and disaggregation—to transfer spectrum usage rights to entities that then employ the previously unused spectrum in providing new services to the American public. At the same time, we recognize there may be situations in which secondary market transactions involving unused spectrum do not occur. Accordingly, we take the opportunity in this proceeding to inquire whether there is more that the Commission should do to promote secondary market solutions where spectrum held by the Overlay Licensee continues to be unused. 43. 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. Might such an approach be helpful in promoting productive use of this spectrum? If so, what specific information (e.g., location and identification of the unused spectrum, point of contact, initial price offering) would be most useful to stimulating secondary market transactions? At what point after issuing the Overlay License should the licensee be required to make such information available? Should the licensee be required to provide such information even if it already has built out some specified portion of the Overlay License area? If we were to require the licensee to provide information on unused spectrum, how should this information be made publicly available so that appropriate information is readily accessible and transparent for potentially interested parties? Should the licensee, for instance, be required to make this information available to the Commission, which could then post the information for potentially interested parties? Can such an approach be designed in a way that would serve to reveal the value of unused spectrum to existing licensees and promote the transfer of usage rights to other parties that value it more highly and would use it to provide services to the American public? We also seek comment on the possible costs and benefits of pursuing this secondary market transparency approach. 44. 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? If so, what specific good faith negotiation processes should we require, and what is the appropriate timeframe for application of such an access model?123 Or, should we consider a 123 See, e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2155-2175 MHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 07-195, 22 FCC Rcd 17035, 17083-89 (2007) (2007 AWS NPRM) (subsequent history omitted) (discussing at length various possible performance requirements). In the March, 2011 Native Nations Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission discussed the potential for requiring good faith negotiations to address difficulties that Tribes have detailed in securing spectrum access from existing wireless licensees whose licenses cover Tribal Land areas. See Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal Lands, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 11-40, 26 FCC (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 20 modified version of negotiation methodologies employed in other wireless services, possibly involving phases of voluntary negotiations, followed by mandatory negotiations?124 What are the relative benefits and costs to such an approach in the context of Overlay Licenses? 45. 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 46. As stated above, consistent with the Commission’s approach in prior transitions of other services from site-based to geographic area-based overlay licensing,125 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.126 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. 47. 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.127 Under this proposal, such rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission may adopt in the future.128 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 (Continued from previous page) Rcd 2623, 2637-40 (2011) (also stating that the approaches in the NPRM were crafted to address the unique circumstances of underserved Tribal lands). 124 See, e.g., supra note 29; see also Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, WT Docket 02-55, 19 FCC Rcd 14969 (2004). 125 See supra ¶ 8. 126 While only MetroPCS advocates a transition via auction, see generally MetroPCS Comments, CTIA recognizes that the Commission’s prior transitions of other services from site-based licensing to geographic area-based licensing have entailed an approach under which mutually exclusive applications are accepted and then resolved through auction, see CTIA Petition at 11-13 (citations omitted). 127 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2101 et seq. 128 See Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission’s Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 05-211, 21 FCC Rcd 891 (2006) (CSEA/Part 1 Report and Order); Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 21 FCC Rcd 4753 (2006) (CSEA/Part 1 Second Report and Order); Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 6703 (2006) (CSEA/Part 1 Second Report and Order’s First Reconsideration Order); Second Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 5425 (2008). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 21 the Bureau pursuant to its delegated authority.129 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. 48. 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.”130 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 variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women.”131 One of the principal means by which the Commission fulfills these mandates is through the award of bidding credits to small businesses. 49. The Commission has stated that it would define eligibility requirements for small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking into account the capital requirements and other characteristics of each particular service in establishing the appropriate threshold.132 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.133 50. 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.134 In adopting size standards for auctions of Cellular licenses covering RSAs, the Commission noted that the markets at issue could attract a wide range of entities and therefore decided to establish three small business definitions and associated levels 129 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131(c), 0.331. See also Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules—Competitive Bidding Procedures, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 97-82, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 448-49, 454-55 (1997) (directing the Bureau to seek comment on specific mechanisms relating to auction conduct pursuant to the BBA) (Part 1 Third Report and Order). 130 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(D). 131 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B). 132 Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7245, 7269 (1994) (Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and Order). 133 Part 1 Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 388. 134 See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket Nos. 96-86, 01-309, 03-264, 06-150, and 06-169, CC Docket No. 94-102, and PS Docket No. 06-229, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8089 (2007) (700 MHz Report and Order and 700 MHz Further Notice, respectively). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 22 of bidding credits.135 Two of the definitions the Commission adopted for Cellular RSA licenses, average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million and average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million, were consistent with the small business definitions it had established for the PCS C and F blocks, based on similarities between PCS and Cellular service.136 Because the Cellular RSAs were relatively small rural markets, however, the Commission decided that smaller businesses might be interested in acquiring licenses to provide service in such markets and could benefit from bidding credits. For this reason the Commission adopted a third small business definition for Cellular RSA licenses, for entities with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 million.137 51. We believe the same reasoning applies to the Cellular Overlay Licenses to be offered under our transition proposal. Accordingly, 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 section 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.138 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 52. 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).139 Broadpoint, Inc. (Broadpoint), a GMSA operator, raises concerns about changing the rules for the GMEZ.140 While Broadpoint limits its 135 Implementation of Competitive Bidding Rules to License Certain Rural Service Areas, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 01-32, 16 FCC Rcd 4296, 4303 (2001) (Cellular RSA NPRM), Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1960, 1974 (2002) (Cellular RSA R&O). 136 See Cellular RSA NPRM, 16 FCC Rcd at 4303; Cellular RSA R&O, 17 FCC Rcd 1960, 1974. In our auctions of broadband PCS C and F block licenses, we have provided bidding credits to entities with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million and entities with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. See 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b)(1)-(2). 137 Cellular RSA R&O, 17 FCC Rcd at 1974. 138 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(f)(2). 139 The GMEZ is governed by its own geographic area-based licensing scheme, while Unserved Area licensing rules apply in the GMCZ, where there are no offshore oil and gas drilling platforms on which to site Cellular facilities. See 47 C.F.R. § 22.950. See also id. §§ 22.911(a)(2), 22.912(b)(2); Cellular Service and Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide for Filing and Processing of Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular Service and to Modify Other Cellular Rules, Report and Order, CC Docket Nos. 97-112 and 90-6, 17 FCC Rcd 1209 (2002) (explaining the rules adopted and also providing extensive history and background on Cellular licensing in the GMSA) (2002 GMSA R&O) (prior history omitted). 140 See generally Broadpoint Comments. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 23 comments to the GMEZ, CTIA asserts in its Revised Plan that the entire GMSA should be exempted from any Cellular licensing transition.141 53. 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 land-based carriers, multiple prior Commission decisions, court litigation and judicial rulings,142 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 this 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 54. We agree with commenters that support subjecting Cellular licensees to a signal field strength limit at their respective license boundaries.143 We believe that a median field strength limit of 40 dBµV/m is appropriate and propose 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 would be unnecessary, even in those CMA Blocks that remain subject to the current site-based licensing rules for Unserved Area.144 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 section 22.911.145 We seek comment on our proposal. 55. 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 dBµV/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 dBµV/m field strength limit will be similarly effective for the Cellular Service.146 While we recognize that 40 dBµV/m represents a stronger 141 See CTIA Revised Plan at 4. 142 See 2002 GMSA R&O, supra note 139. 143 See Verizon Wireless Comments at 4-5; RTG Comments at 7. See also USCC Reply Comments at 1, 4; CTIA Revised Plan at 7. 144 47 C.F.R. § 22.912. Licensees in the GMEZ (see id. § 22.912(b)(2)) may need to account for any differences in calculation methodology necessitated by the over-water portion of the path (or use actual measurements). Our proposed field strength limit would not be used to determine service coverage and would not replace the formula in 47 C.F.R. § 22.911 for site-based applications in CMA Blocks that continue to be governed by the existing rules (not included in the Stage I auction). 145 47 C.F.R. § 22.911. 146 The field strength limit we are proposing for the Cellular Service appears on its face to be lower than the existing broadband PCS field strength limit, yet it is comparable in effect. This is because the Cellular frequency (~ 880 MHz) is lower than the PCS frequency (~ 1950 MHz), and consequently, the wavelength of a Cellular wave is approximately 2.2 times larger than that of a broadband PCS wave. The difference in wavelength means that the physical capture area of a Cellular antenna is approximately 2.2˛ = 4.8 times larger than that of an equivalent gain PCS antenna. In decibels, this ratio is calculated as follows: 20 × log (1950 ÷ 880) = 6.9 dB, which rounds to 7 dB. Thus, assuming equivalent gain antennas, a field strength of 40 dBuV/m at 880 MHz produces the same power at the receiver input terminal (? 96 dBm, assuming a 0 dBi gain antenna ) as does a field strength of 47 dBuV/m at 1950 MHz. (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 24 field strength compared to 32 dBµV/m, 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.147 In cases where adjacent Cellular licensees have a contractual agreement in place today, median field strength could already be higher than 32 dBµV/m, and indeed could already be higher than 40 dBµV/m. 56. We believe that co-channel licensees are themselves in the best position to negotiate the 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,148 we also propose to allow Cellular licensees to negotiate contractual agreements specifying field strength limits different from the limit established by rule.149 57. 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)150 in the Cellular Service be avoided by coordination between or among licensees, e.g., through channel choice, sectors, codes, site locations, antenna patterns, and azimuths. Section 22.907 is technology-neutral and has been successful thus far in preventing an excessive quantity of interference complaints from Cellular licensees. Therefore, we propose to retain the requirements for mandatory coordination that are currently set forth in section 22.907.151 58. 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 counter-proposal, 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 59. 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 (Continued from previous page) 147 There have been very few boundary disputes among PCS licensees, for example, which are subject to a field strength limit of 47 dBµV/m at their respective license boundaries. Moreover, as PCS rules also permit negotiated departures from the applicable limit, PCS licensees may be operating with field strength limits that exceed 47 dBµV/m. 148 See 47 C.F.R. § 24.236. 149 While licensees would be free under our proposal to negotiate a different field strength limit from the limit that is ultimately adopted in this proceeding, we emphasize 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. 150 Traffic capture has not been a problem in Cellular digital systems (or in PCS systems) because of seamless national coverage using the various technologies available today. With Cellular analog systems, issues with traffic capture could arise because of relative differences between the signal levels of the home system and the roaming system (and “roamers” might be charged higher rates). So long as the same signal level applies to all systems, traffic capture concerns generally do not arise. 151 47 C.F.R. § 22.907. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 25 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 the Overlay License again at a subsequent Commission auction. We seek comment on these considerations under this alternate approach. 60. 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. 61. 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 a. Transition-related Amendments 62. Proposed new and revised rules to reflect the proposed two-stage transition of Cellular licensing are set forth in Appendix E (Rules Appendix). We urge all parties to review the Rules Appendix 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 rule section 22.99.152 b. AMPS-related Data Collection; Other Deletions and Updates 63. 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.153 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 sections 22.929154 and 22.953(a)155 will no longer be routinely of interest to the Commission’s engineering staff in their review of Cellular applications in the future,156 and accordingly, we propose to streamline these requirements in a 152 47 C.F.R. § 22.99. 153 See Appendix E. 154 47 C.F.R. § 22.929. 155 47 C.F.R. § 22.953(a)(4)-(10). 156 In addition, the Bureau is in the process of implementing electronic filing of the large-scale Cellular maps required to be submitted under 47 C.F.R. § 22.953(a), pursuant to delegated authority and rules adopted in the ULS proceeding to eliminate paper filings. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.913(b); Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, Report and Order, WT (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 26 revised section 22.953 (and a corresponding deletion of section 22.929). In addition, with sunset of the requirement to provide analog Cellular service, all of section 22.901(b)157 has been rendered moot (discussed further below) and we therefore propose to delete it.158 The results of our review are reflected in the proposed rules set forth in the Rules Appendix. We invite all commenters to review each of the proposed revisions and deletions and comment on them with specificity. If there are other rules that commenters believe should be revised or deleted 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. 64. 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 section 22.901(b) of our rules.159 Pursuant to the 2007 AMPS Sunset Order, on November 16, 2007, the Bureau released a Public Notice 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.160 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.161 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.162 Accordingly, we propose to terminate (Continued from previous page) Docket No. 98-20, 13 FCC Rcd 21027, 21094 (1998), recon. granted in part, 14 FCC Rcd 11476, 11492 (1999). As a step in that process, the Bureau has announced optional electronic filing of such maps. See “Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Electronic Filing Option for Cellular Radiotelephone Service Full-Size Maps,” Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 11475 (WTB 2011). We hereby reaffirm the Bureau’s delegated authority to issue further Public Notices, as it deems appropriate, with instructions for applicants that are required to submit exhibits with their Cellular applications, including the effective date of mandatory electronic filing of the full-size Cellular maps, and with instructions for the public regarding access to such submissions. 157 47 C.F.R. § 22.901(b). 158 See also supra ¶ 34 (discussing proposed deletion of provisions regarding the initial 5-year build-out period, and references thereto, as well as provisions regarding Phase I applications, and references thereto). 159 See Sunset of the Cellular Radiotelephone Service Analog Service Requirement and Related Matters, Memorandum Opinion and Order, RM No. 11355, 22 FCC Rcd 11243 (2007) (2007 AMPS Sunset Order); 47 C.F.R. § 22.901(b). 160 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Instructions for Electronic Filing of Cellular Coverage Certifications, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 19922 (WTB 2007) (AMPS Instructions Notice). 161 2007 AMPS Sunset Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 11266-67. CTIA asserts that, in light of the AMPS Sunset, “CGSAs on record may understate digital coverage” and that “such existing digital coverage should be recognized and protected.” CTIA Petition at 7. The AMPS Sunset Certification process established by the Commission permitted incumbents to maintain their analog-determined CGSA (on file with the Commission as of the Certification filing date). See 2007 AMPS Sunset Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 11267. We reiterate that it is a licensee’s obligation to file the appropriate modification application seeking approval of any changes to the CGSA, including changes that may have resulted from a switch from analog to digital operations. We also reiterate that licensees have had ample opportunity since the AMPS Instructions Notice was released in November 2007 to file applications concerning CGSA changes resulting from the cessation of analog operations. 162 A Cellular licensee could also opt to make no filing if, in transitioning from analog to digital technology, there was no effect on its CGSA-defining location, power, or height parameters. See 2007 AMPS Sunset Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 11267. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 27 the Commission’s collection of such Certifications163 and to delete section 22.901(b). We welcome comment on these proposals. 2. Possible Relocation of Part 22 Cellular and Part 24 PCS Rules to Part 27 65. 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 area-based 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) 66. We take this opportunity to propose correction of a clerical error in the distance computation formula in section 1.958(d) of our rules.164 The error was introduced in the process of moving the provision containing the formula from Part 22 (section 22.157) to Subpart F of Part 1.165 The proposed correction is included in the Rules Appendix of this NPRM. IV. ORDER A. Suspension of Certain Filings 67. To permit the orderly and effective resolution of the fundamental changes and issues we raise herein, and consistent with our actions in numerous prior proceedings,166 we find it appropriate to 163 See AMPS Instructions Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 19923 (referencing http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/ with instructions for attaching a Certification at the Cellular Coverage Certifications Submission page). 164 47 C.F.R. § 1.958(d). 165 See Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules To Benefit the Consumers of Air-Ground Telecommunications Services, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 03-103, 20 FCC Rcd 4403, 4448-49 (2005). See also Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary of the Commission, from Dane E. Ericksen, Hammett & Edison, Inc., dated Mar. 21, 2011 (regarding, inter alia, this clerical error in 47 C.F.R. § 1.958(d)). 166 See, e.g., Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands, Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 03-66, RM- 10586, 18 FCC Rcd 6722, 6813-14 (2003) (2003 ITFS NPRM); Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, Fourth Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 22585, 22621-22 (2000) (2000 Maritime Services FNPRM); Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 3108, 3136-37 (1996) (1996 Paging Services NPRM); Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896-901 MHz and the 935- 940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized Mobile Radio Pool; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding and Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 [sic] of the Communications Act, Second Order on Reconsideration and Seventh Report and Order, PR Docket No. 89-553, GN Docket No. 93-252, 11 FCC Rcd 2639, 2658-59 (1995) (1995 900 MHz SMR Order). See also Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services; Imposition of a Freeze, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, WT Docket No. 10-112, FCC 10-86, 25 FCC (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 28 impose an immediate freeze on the acceptance of certain Cellular applications.167 We recognize that the imposition of a freeze imposes costs for a limited period on some licensees, e.g., those that have already undertaken preparation of applications to change their system parameters or establish new systems. Rather than imposing a freeze on all modification and new-system applications, we are tailoring 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. In addition, consistent with our actions in numerous prior proceedings,168 by this Order we adopt other interim procedures for certain Cellular applications, as explained below.169 68. We recognize that licensees in the Cellular Service, with approximately three decades of deployment, have demonstrated levels of service in excess of other commercial wireless services. We seek 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.170 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.171 69. Accordingly, as of the adoption date of this Order (Adoption Date) and until further notice, we hereby suspend acceptance of certain Cellular applications claiming Unserved Area in “Covered” CMA Blocks. Covered Blocks include: (i) those we preliminarily determine to be Substantially Licensed under either benchmark of our proposed test (listed in Appendix C); and (ii) those we (Continued from previous page) Rcd 6996, 7033-34 (2010) (2010 WRS NPRM); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, Second Report and Order, PR Docket No. 93-144, GN Docket No. 93-252, PP Docket No. 93-253, RMs-8117, -8029, -8030, 12 FCC Rcd 19079, 19105 (1997) (1997 800 MHz Second R&O); Licensing of General Category Frequencies in the 806-809.750/851-854.750 MHz Bands, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13190 (WTB 1995) (1995 800 MHz Freeze Order). 167 Our 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)-(B), (d). See also Bachow Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Bachow) (affirming imposition of a freeze and interim procedures without notice and comment for applications in the 39 GHz band during transition of licensing regime); Neighborhood TV Co., Inc. v. FCC, 742 F.2d 629, 638 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Neighborhood TV) (deeming interim processing rules, including a freeze on applications, as procedural); Kessler v. FCC, 326 F.2d 673 (D.C. Cir. 1963) (Kessler) (same). 168 See supra note 166. 169 We note that CTIA and several other commenters address a possible freeze and/or interim processing procedures for Cellular applications during the pendency of this proceeding. See CTIA Petition at 15; CTIA Revised Plan at 5- 6; Commnet Comments at 12-14; Commnet Reply Comments at 2, 8; GCI Comments at 2-3, 10-13; GCI Reply Comments at 6; MetroPCS Comments at 10; NTCA Comments at 2, 4; RTG Comments at 2, 8; Verizon Wireless Comments at 5-6. 170 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(c). 171 See, e.g., Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, WT Docket No. 02-55, ET Docket No. 00-258, RM- 9498, RM-10024, and ET Docket No. 95-18, 19 FCC Rcd 14651, 14992 (2004) (errata citations omitted) (explaining that a freeze was imposed “to ensure that resolution of the spectrum allocation issues raised in [the proceeding] would not be compromised”). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 29 preliminarily determine to be more than 90% but less than 95% licensed (listed in Appendix F).172 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.173 Any applications prohibited under this Order that are received on or after the Adoption Date are to be dismissed by the Bureau as unacceptable for filing. 70. We will permit major modification applications that propose CGSA expansion in, or into, Covered Blocks only if claiming Unserved Area that is contiguous to the existing CGSA.174 Also, as of the Adoption Date and until further notice, we will use 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 contiguous175 to the existing licensed CGSA. 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. 71. 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.176 We advise all parties, however, that although minor modification applications (regardless of market) are not affected by the freeze we impose 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). 72. As the Commission has previously stated, a freeze is “a necessary adjunct to any efficient and effective rule making” until the current rules can be reexamined “and in which amendments to the rules might be made.”177 In sum, we find that the public interest is best served by imposition of the 172 We have not listed in this Appendix the Blocks already listed in Appendix C (i.e., those that preliminarily meet either benchmark of our proposed Substantially Licensed test), which are also Covered Blocks for purposes of this Order. 173 Thus, for example, if a proposed new-system 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. 174 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. 175 See supra note 174. 176 Applications for renewal must comply with any applicable provisions of the Notice released by the Commission in the WRS proceeding in May 2010. See generally 2010 WRS NPRM, supra note 166. See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.939. 177 Kessler, 326 F.2d at 680-81. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 30 freeze and related interim procedures we adopt today. In the following Section B, we discuss how we will process currently pending new-system and CGSA-expansion applications in Covered CMA Blocks. B. Currently Pending Non-Mutually Exclusive Applications in Covered CMA Blocks 73. 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 non-mutually 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.178 For pending new-system applications, we will permit major amendments on or after the Adoption Date only so long as the proposed new-system 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.179 For such amendments, we will use a “same-day filing group” for purposes of determining mutual exclusivity, and we 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 the applications in abeyance until conclusion of this proceeding, we conclude 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.180 74. 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 this 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. 75. 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. 178 See supra ¶ 70. 179 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. 180 See, e.g., 2003 ITFS NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6813-14; 2000 Maritime Services FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 22622; 1996 Paging Services NPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 3137. See also Kessler, 326 F.2d at 684 (noting FCC’s conclusion that the total number of potential grants “was not sufficiently great to frustrate the ends [it] sought to accomplish through [the] rule making”). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 31 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Ex Parte Rules – Permit-But-Disclose 76. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.181 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 section 1.1206(b).182 In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f)183 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 77. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules,184 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).185 § Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. § 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. § All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries 181 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq. 182 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). 183 47 C.F.R. § 1.49(f). 184 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419. 185 See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 32 must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. § 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. § U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554. 78. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 79. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),186 the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. The analysis is found in Appendix G. We request written public comment on the analysis. Comments must be filed by the same dates as listed on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis 80. This document contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 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.” E. Further Information 81. For further information, contact Nina Shafran of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, at 202-418-2781, or by e-mail to Nina.Shafran@fcc.gov. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 82. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order are hereby ADOPTED. 83. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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. 186 5 U.S.C. § 603. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 33 84. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposed regulatory changes described in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and that comment is sought on these proposals. 85. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 34 APPENDIX A List of Commenters I. Comments AT&T Inc. (AT&T) Broadpoint, Inc. (Broadpoint) Commnet Wireless, LLC (Commnet) GCI Communication Corp. (GCI) MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (MetroPCS) National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) Rural Independent Competitive Alliance (RICA) The Rural Telecommunications Group, Inc. (RTG) United States Cellular Corporation (USCC) Verizon Wireless II. Reply Comments AT&T CTIA – The Wireless Association (CTIA) Commnet GCI USCC Verizon Wireless III. Ex Parte Filings CTIA (Feb. 13, 2009) CTIA (Aug. 5, 2009) CTIA (Sept. 21, 2010, as corrected on Sept. 22, 2010) (Revised Plan) CTIA (May 20, 2011) CTIA (Jan. 24, 2012) (Noel) CTIA (Feb. 2, 2012) (Levine) CTIA (Feb. 2, 2012) (Peraertz) CTIA (Feb. 8, 2012) (Giancarlo) GCI (Apr. 15, 2010) GCI (Oct. 7, 2010) GCI (May 19, 2011) NTCA (May 23, 2011) (on behalf of NTCA and GCI) RTG (Nov. 8, 2010) (RTG Letter Response) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 35 APPENDIX B Maps Showing Unserved Area in (1) Continental U.S., and (2) Alaska (Data as of 1/11/2012) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 37 APPENDIX C List of CMA Blocks That Meet Proposed “Substantially Licensed” Test (Block A listed first, in 2 groupings, followed by Block B, in 2 groupings) (meeting proposed test as of 01/11/2012) Block A >= 95% CMA DESC A-Block Percent Licensed Area 1 CMA001A New York, NY-NJ/Nassau-Suffolk, NY/Newark, Jersey 99.94% 2 CMA002A Los Angeles-Long Beach/Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Gr 98.70% 3 CMA003A Chicago, IL 99.31% 4 CMA004A Philadelphia, PA 99.92% 5 CMA005A Detroit/Ann Arbor, MI 99.96% 6 CMA006A Boston-Lowell-Brockton-Lawrence-Haverhill, MA-NH 100.00% 7 CMA007A San Francisco-Oakland, CA 100.00% 8 CMA008A Washington, DC-MD-VA 100.00% 9 CMA009A Dallas-Forth Worth, TX 99.86% 10 CMA010A Houston, TX 100.00% 11 CMA011A St. Louis, MO-IL 99.82% 12 CMA012A Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, FL 97.28% 13 CMA013A Pittsburgh, PA 99.99% 14 CMA014A Baltimore, MD 99.94% 15 CMA015A Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 96.00% 16 CMA016A Cleveland, OH 99.93% 17 CMA017A Atlanta, GA 99.98% 18 CMA018A San Diego, CA 99.91% 19 CMA019A Denver-Boulder, CO 95.37% 20 CMA020A Seattle-Everett, WA 99.96% 21 CMA021A Milwaukee, WI 100.00% 22 CMA022A Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 99.97% 23 CMA023A Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 98.69% 24 CMA024A Kansas City, MO-KS 99.78% 25 CMA025A Buffalo, NY 99.84% 26 CMA027A San Jose, CA 100.00% 27 CMA028A Indianapolis, IN 100.00% 28 CMA030A Portland, OR-WA 99.99% 29 CMA031A Columbus, OH 99.97% 30 CMA032A Hartford-New Britain-Bristol, CT 99.92% 31 CMA033A San Antonio, TX 99.96% 32 CMA034A Rochester, NY 100.00% 33 CMA035A Sacramento, CA 100.00% 34 CMA036A Memphis, TN-AR-MS 97.03% 35 CMA037A Louisville, KY-IN 100.00% 36 CMA038A Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket, RI 99.96% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 38 37 CMA040A Dayton, OH 99.95% 38 CMA041A Birmingham, AL 99.89% 39 CMA042A Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk-Danbury, CT 100.00% 40 CMA043A Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Portsmouth, VA/NC 98.36% 41 CMA044A Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 100.00% 42 CMA045A Oklahoma City, OK 97.31% 43 CMA046A Nashville-Davidson, TN 99.98% 44 CMA047A Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC 100.00% 45 CMA048A Toledo, OH-MI 98.71% 46 CMA049A New Haven-West Haven-Waterbury-Meriden, CT 100.00% 47 CMA050A Honolulu, HI 97.77% 48 CMA051A Jacksonville, FL 98.33% 49 CMA052A Akron, OH 99.99% 50 CMA053A Syracuse, NY 99.83% 51 CMA054A Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, IN 100.00% 52 CMA055A Worchester-Fitchburg-Leominster, MA 99.98% 53 CMA056A Northeast Pennsylvania, PA 100.00% 54 CMA057A Tulsa, OK 99.29% 55 CMA058A Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 100.00% 56 CMA059A Richmond, VA 99.84% 57 CMA060A Orlando, FL 100.00% 58 CMA061A Charlotte-Gastonia, NC 99.98% 59 CMA062A New Brunswick-Perth Amboy-Sayreville, NJ 100.00% 60 CMA063A Springfield-Chicopee-Holyoke, MA 99.66% 61 CMA064A Grand Rapids, MI 99.98% 62 CMA065A Omaha, NE-IA 100.00% 63 CMA066A Youngstown-Warren, OH 100.00% 64 CMA067A Greenville-Spartanburg, SC 100.00% 65 CMA068A Flint, MI 100.00% 66 CMA069A Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD 99.99% 67 CMA070A Long Branch-Asbury Park, NJ 99.81% 68 CMA071A Raleigh-Durham, NC 100.00% 69 CMA072A West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL 99.79% 70 CMA073A Oxnard-Simi Valley-Ventura, CA 98.61% 71 CMA075A Austin, TX 99.92% 72 CMA076A New Bedford-Fall River, MA 99.92% 73 CMA077A Tuscon, AZ 95.97% 74 CMA078A Lansing-East Lansing, MI 100.00% 75 CMA079A Knoxville, TN 99.89% 76 CMA080A Baton Rouge, LA 99.91% 77 CMA081A El Paso, TX 99.77% 78 CMA082A Tacoma, WA 99.99% 79 CMA083A Mobile, AL 97.68% 80 CMA084A Harrisburg, PA 100.00% 81 CMA085A Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA 99.97% 82 CMA086A Albuquerque, NM 99.28% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 39 83 CMA087A Canton, OH 99.86% 84 CMA088A Chattanooga, TN-GA 99.95% 85 CMA089A Wichita, KS 97.74% 86 CMA090A Charleston-North Charleston, SC 99.72% 87 CMA091A San Juan-Caguas, PR 100.00% 88 CMA092A Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR 99.91% 89 CMA094A Saginaw-Bay City-Midland, MI 99.91% 90 CMA095A Columbia, SC 100.00% 91 CMA096A Fort Wayne, IN 99.52% 92 CMA097A Bakersfield, CA 99.49% 93 CMA098A Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA/IL 99.97% 94 CMA099A York, PA 100.00% 95 CMA100A Shreveport, Louisiana 99.87% 96 CMA101A Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 96.78% 97 CMA102A Des Moines, IA 99.87% 98 CMA103A Peoria, IL 99.90% 99 CMA105A Lancaster, PA 100.00% 100 CMA106A Jackson, MS 100.02% 101 CMA107A Stockton, CA 99.90% 102 CMA108A Augusta, GA/SC 99.95% 103 CMA109A Spokane, WA 99.90% 104 CMA110A Huntington-Ashland, WV/KY/OH 98.45% 105 CMA111A Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA 100.00% 106 CMA112A Corpus Christi, TX 100.01% 107 CMA113A Madison, WI 99.92% 108 CMA114A Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 99.91% 109 CMA115A Utica-Rome, NY 99.99% 110 CMA116A Lexington-Fayette, KY 99.98% 111 CMA118A Reading, PA 99.99% 112 CMA119A Evansville, IN/KY 99.84% 113 CMA120A Huntsville, AL 99.93% 114 CMA121A Trenton, NJ 99.87% 115 CMA122A Binghamton, NY 100.00% 116 CMA123A Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA 99.69% 117 CMA124A Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA 98.34% 118 CMA125A Appleton-Oskosh-Neenah, WI 99.97% 119 CMA127A Pensacola, FL 99.94% 120 CMA128A McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 99.64% 121 CMA129A South Bend-Mishawaka, IN 100.00% 122 CMA130A Erie, PA 100.00% 123 CMA131A Rockford, IL 99.91% 124 CMA132A Kalamazoo, MI 99.99% 125 CMA133A Manchester-Nashua, NH 99.87% 126 CMA134A Atlantic City, NJ 100.00% 127 CMA136A Lorain-Elyria, OH 97.74% 128 CMA137A Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, FL 99.86% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 40 129 CMA138A Macon-Warner Robins, GA 100.00% 130 CMA139A Montgomery, AL 99.87% 131 CMA140A Charleston, WV 99.08% 132 CMA141A Duluth, MN-WI 97.30% 133 CMA142A Modesto, CA 99.79% 134 CMA143A Johnstown, PA 100.00% 135 CMA144A Orange County, NY 100.00% 136 CMA145A Hamilton-Middletown, OH 99.96% 137 CMA146A Daytona Beach, FL 99.85% 138 CMA147A Ponce, PR 100.00% 139 CMA148A Salem, OR 99.74% 140 CMA149A Fayetteville, NC 99.74% 141 CMA151A Poughkeepsie, NY 100.00% 142 CMA152A Portland, ME 99.92% 143 CMA153A Columbus, GA-AL 99.86% 144 CMA154A New London-Norwich, CT 99.54% 145 CMA155A Savannah, GA 99.72% 146 CMA156A Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH-ME 99.91% 147 CMA157A Roanoke, VA 95.30% 148 CMA158A Lima, OH 99.94% 149 CMA159A Provo-Orem, UT 98.78% 150 CMA160A Killeen-Temple, TX 100.02% 151 CMA161A Lubbock, TX Counties - Lubbock 100.00% 152 CMA162A Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 97.98% 153 CMA163A Springfield, MO 99.61% 154 CMA164A Fort Myers, FL Counties - Lee 99.92% 155 CMA165A Fort Smith, AK-OK 99.74% 156 CMA166A Hickory, NC 97.65% 157 CMA167A Sarasota, FL 99.90% 158 CMA168A Tallahassee, FL 99.97% 159 CMA170A Galveston-Texas City, TX 99.51% 160 CMA172A Lincoln, NE 99.62% 161 CMA173A Biloxi-Gulfport, MS 99.53% 162 CMA174A Lafayette, LA 99.55% 163 CMA175A Santa Cruz, CA 100.00% 164 CMA176A Springfield, IL 99.94% 165 CMA177A Battle Creek, MI 99.39% 166 CMA178A Wheeling, WV-OH 99.93% 167 CMA179A Topeka, KS 99.99% 168 CMA180A Springfield, OH 99.98% 169 CMA181A Muskegon, MI 99.95% 170 CMA182A Fayetteville-Springdale, AK 99.99% 171 CMA183A Asheville, NC 99.96% 172 CMA185A Terre Haute, IN 100.00% 173 CMA186A Green Bay, WI 99.48% 174 CMA188A Amarillo, TX 98.18% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 41 175 CMA189A Racine, WI 99.99% 176 CMA190A Boise City, ID 100.00% 177 CMA192A Gainesville, FL 99.81% 178 CMA193A Benton Harbor, MI 99.99% 179 CMA194A Waco, TX 99.96% 180 CMA195A Cedar Rapids, IA 100.00% 181 CMA196A Champaign-Urbana-Rantoul, IL 99.97% 182 CMA197A Lake Charles, LA 99.96% 183 CMA198A St. Cloud, MN 99.97% 184 CMA199A Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV 99.94% 185 CMA200A Parkersburg-Marietta, OH-WV 99.89% 186 CMA201A Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA 99.90% 187 CMA202A Arecibo, PR 99.75% 188 CMA203A Lynchburg, VA 98.90% 189 CMA204A Aguadilla, PR 99.91% 190 CMA205A Alexandria, LA 99.95% 191 CMA206A Longview-Marshall, TX 99.88% 192 CMA207A Jackson, MI 99.94% 193 CMA208A Fort Pierce, FL 99.79% 194 CMA209A Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN/KY 99.95% 195 CMA211A Bradenton, FL 99.99% 196 CMA212A Bremerton, WA 99.80% 197 CMA213A Pittsfield, MA 99.89% 198 CMA214A Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA 95.91% 199 CMA215A Chico 99.95% 200 CMA216A Janesville-Beloit, WI 100.01% 201 CMA217A Anderson, IN 99.90% 202 CMA218A Wilmington, NC 99.30% 203 CMA219A Monroe, LA 99.94% 204 CMA220A Abilene, TX 99.31% 205 CMA221A Fargo-Moorehead, ND-MN 98.69% 206 CMA222A Tuscaloosa, AL 97.53% 207 CMA223A Elkhart-Goshen, IN 99.97% 208 CMA225A Altoona, PA 99.88% 209 CMA226A Florence, AL 99.65% 210 CMA227A Anderson, SC 99.99% 211 CMA228A Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ 99.70% 212 CMA229A Medford, OR 97.02% 213 CMA230A Decatur, IL 99.95% 214 CMA231A Mansfield, OH 99.83% 215 CMA232A Eau Claire, WI 99.94% 216 CMA233A Wichita Falls, TX 98.31% 217 CMA234A Athens, GA 100.00% 218 CMA235A Petersburg-Colonial Heights-Hopewell, VA 98.27% 219 CMA236A Muncie, IN 99.99% 220 CMA237A Tyler, TX 99.89% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 42 221 CMA238A Sharon, PA 99.99% 222 CMA239A Joplin, MO 100.01% 223 CMA240A Texarkana, TX - Texarkana, AR 100.00% 224 CMA242A Olympia, WA 99.39% 225 CMA243A Greeley, CO 95.49% 226 CMA244A Kenosha, WI 99.77% 227 CMA246A Dothan, AL 99.79% 228 CMA247A Lafayette, IN 99.99% 229 CMA248A Burlington, VT 99.99% 230 CMA249A Anniston, AL 100.00% 231 CMA250A Bloomington-Normal, IL 99.99% 232 CMA251A Williamsport, PA 99.99% 233 CMA252A Pascagoula, MS 99.46% 234 CMA253A Sioux City, IA-NE 99.65% 235 CMA255A Odessa, TX 99.84% 236 CMA256A Charlottesville, VA 99.48% 237 CMA257A Hagerstown, MD 99.66% 238 CMA258A Jacksonville, NC 99.56% 239 CMA259A State College, PA 100.00% 240 CMA260A Lawton, OK 99.56% 241 CMA261A Albany, GA 100.00% 242 CMA262A Danville, VA 98.84% 243 CMA263A Wausau, WI 99.96% 244 CMA264A Florence, SC 100.00% 245 CMA265A Fort Walton Beach, FL 99.66% 246 CMA266A Glens Falls, NY 100.00% 247 CMA267A Sioux Falls, SD 99.78% 248 CMA269A Cumberland, MD-WV 99.79% 249 CMA271A Kokomo, IN 99.94% 250 CMA272A Gadsden, AL 99.96% 251 CMA273A Kankakee, IL 100.04% 252 CMA274A Yuba City, CA 100.00% 253 CMA275A St. Joseph, MO 99.13% 254 CMA276A Grand Forks, ND-MN 98.10% 255 CMA277A Sheboygan, WI 99.86% 256 CMA278A Columbia, MO 99.86% 257 CMA279A Lewiston-Auburn, ME 99.88% 258 CMA280A Burlington, NC 99.99% 259 CMA281A Laredo, TX 99.77% 260 CMA282A Bloomington, IN 99.98% 261 CMA283A Panama City, FL 99.73% 262 CMA284A Elmira, NY 100.00% 263 CMA286A Dubuque, IA 99.98% 264 CMA287A Bryan-College Station, TX 99.68% 265 CMA288A Rochester, MN 100.01% 266 CMA290A La Crosse, WI 99.91% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 43 267 CMA291A Pine Bluff, AK 99.82% 268 CMA292A Sherman-Denison, TX 97.25% 269 CMA293A Owensboro, KY 99.79% 270 CMA295A Midland, TX 99.60% 271 CMA296A Iowa City, IA 99.77% 272 CMA297A Great Falls, MT 97.91% 273 CMA298A Bismarck, ND 98.65% 274 CMA300A Victoria, TX 100.00% 275 CMA301A Lawrence, KS 99.90% 276 CMA302A Enid, OK 98.30% 277 CMA303A Aurora-Elgin, IL 99.80% 278 CMA304A Joliet, IL 100.00% 279 CMA305A Alton-Granite City, IL 100.00% 280 CMA307A Alabama 1 - Franklin 99.99% 281 CMA308A Alabama 2 - Jackson 100.00% 282 CMA309A Alabama 3 - Lamar 99.24% 283 CMA310A Alabama 4 - Bibb 99.78% 284 CMA311A Alabama 5 - Cleburne 99.71% 285 CMA312A Alabama 6 - Washington 95.42% 286 CMA313A Alabama 7 - Butler 99.84% 287 CMA314A Alabama 8 - Lee 99.87% 288 CMA320A Arizona 3 - Navajo 97.49% 289 CMA322A Arizona 5 - Gila 95.91% 290 CMA324A Arkansas 1 - Madison 99.90% 291 CMA325A Arkansas 2 - Marion 99.93% 292 CMA326A Arkansas 3 - Sharp 99.93% 293 CMA327A Arkansas 4 - Clay 99.56% 294 CMA328A Arkansas 5 - Cross 97.11% 295 CMA329A Arkansas 6 - Cleburne 99.91% 296 CMA330A Arkansas 7 - Pope 100.00% 297 CMA331A Arkansas 8 - Franklin 99.99% 298 CMA332A Arkansas 9 - Polk 100.00% 299 CMA333A Arkansas 10 - Garland 100.00% 300 CMA334A Arkansas 11 - Hempstead 96.93% 301 CMA335A Arkansas 12 - Ouachita 98.08% 302 CMA340A California 5 - San Luis Obispo 97.54% 303 CMA344A California 9 - Mendocino 98.40% 304 CMA345A California 10 - Sierra 98.87% 305 CMA346A California 11 - El Dorado 99.99% 306 CMA347A California 12 - Kings 99.42% 307 CMA349A Colorado 2 - Logan 98.96% 308 CMA351A Colorado 4 - Park 96.43% 309 CMA357A Connecticut 1 - Litchfield 100.00% 310 CMA358A Connecticut 2 - Windham 100.00% 311 CMA359A Delaware 1 - Kent 99.99% 312 CMA360A Florida 1 - Collier 99.94% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 44 313 CMA361A Florida 2 - Glades 97.68% 314 CMA362A Florida 3 - Hardee 99.95% 315 CMA363A Florida 4 - Citrus 99.97% 316 CMA364A Florida 5 - Putnam 97.35% 317 CMA365A Florida 6 - Dixie 99.75% 318 CMA366A Florida 7 - Hamilton 99.96% 319 CMA367A Florida 8 - Jefferson 100.00% 320 CMA368A Florida 9 - Calhoun 95.34% 321 CMA369A Florida 10 - Walton 99.64% 322 CMA371A Georgia 1 - Whitfield 98.68% 323 CMA372A Georgia 2 - Dawson 99.99% 324 CMA373A Georgia 3 - Chattooga 100.00% 325 CMA374A Georgia 4 - Jasper 96.77% 326 CMA375A Georgia 5 - Haralson 99.93% 327 CMA376A Georgia 6 - Spalding 99.98% 328 CMA377A Georgia 7 - Hancock 99.98% 329 CMA378A Georgia 8 - Warren 99.54% 330 CMA379A Georgia 9 - Marion 100.00% 331 CMA380A Georgia 10 - Bleckley 99.92% 332 CMA381A Georgia 11 - Toombs 99.80% 333 CMA382A Georgia 12 - Liberty 99.88% 334 CMA383A Georgia 13 - Early 99.78% 335 CMA384A Georgia 14 - Worth 100.00% 336 CMA386A Hawaii 2 - Maui 95.10% 337 CMA394A Illinois 1 - Jo Daviess 99.97% 338 CMA395A Illinois 2 - Bureau 99.63% 339 CMA396A Illinois 3 - Mercer 99.89% 340 CMA397A Illinois 4 - Adams 99.99% 341 CMA398A Illinois 5 - Mason 99.97% 342 CMA399A Illinois 6 - Montgomery 100.00% 343 CMA400A Illinois 7 - Vermilion 99.90% 344 CMA401A Illinois 8 - Washington 99.80% 345 CMA402A Illinois 9 - Clay 99.56% 346 CMA403A Indiana 1 - Newton 99.94% 347 CMA404A Indiana 2 - Kosciusko 99.94% 348 CMA405A Indiana 3 - Huntington 99.95% 349 CMA406A Indiana 4 - Miami 100.00% 350 CMA407A Indiana 5 - Warren 99.96% 351 CMA408A Indiana 6 - Randolph 99.95% 352 CMA409A Indiana 7 - Owen 99.92% 353 CMA410A Indiana 8 - Brown 99.98% 354 CMA411A Indiana 9 - Decatur 99.98% 355 CMA412A Iowa 1 - Mills 99.96% 356 CMA413A Iowa 2 - Union 100.00% 357 CMA414A Iowa 3 - Monroe 99.84% 358 CMA416A Iowa 5 - Jackson 99.98% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 45 359 CMA417A Iowa 6 - Iowa 99.90% 360 CMA418A Iowa 7 - Audubon 99.89% 361 CMA419A Iowa 8 - Monona 97.24% 362 CMA420A Iowa 9 - Ida 99.70% 363 CMA421A Iowa 10 - Humbolt 98.81% 364 CMA422A Iowa 11 - Hardin 99.99% 365 CMA423A Iowa 12 - Winneshiek 99.10% 366 CMA424A Iowa 13 - Mitchell 99.81% 367 CMA425A Iowa 14 - Kossuth 98.40% 368 CMA426A Iowa 15 - Dickinson 99.52% 369 CMA427A Iowa 16 - Lyon 98.35% 370 CMA430A Kansas 3 - Jewell 95.06% 371 CMA431A Kansas 4 - Marshall 99.48% 372 CMA432A Kansas 5 - Brown 99.77% 373 CMA434A Kansas 7 - Trego 99.25% 374 CMA435A Kansas 8 - Ellsworth 97.25% 375 CMA437A Kansas 10 - Franklin 98.63% 376 CMA438A Kansas 11 - Hamilton 97.04% 377 CMA443A Kentucky 1 - Fulton 97.59% 378 CMA444A Kentucky 2 - Union 99.44% 379 CMA445A Kentucky 3 - Meade 99.97% 380 CMA446A Kentucky 4 - Spencer 99.94% 381 CMA447A Kentucky 5 - Barren 99.97% 382 CMA448A Kentucky 6 - Madison 100.00% 383 CMA449A Kentucky 7 - Trimble 99.33% 384 CMA450A Kentucky 8 - Mason 97.34% 385 CMA451A Kentucky 9 - Elliott 99.96% 386 CMA452A Kentucky 10 - Powell 99.98% 387 CMA453A Kentucky 11 - Clay 99.98% 388 CMA454A Louisiana 1 - Claiborne 99.91% 389 CMA455A Louisiana 2 - Morehouse 99.65% 390 CMA456A Louisiana 3 - De Soto 99.93% 391 CMA457A Louisiana 4 - Caldwell 99.75% 392 CMA458A Louisiana 5 - Beauregard 99.86% 393 CMA459A Louisiana 6 - Iberville 95.82% 394 CMA460A Louisiana 7 - West Feliciana 99.86% 395 CMA461A Louisiana 8 - St. James 98.31% 396 CMA463A Maine 1 - Oxford 96.98% 397 CMA465A Maine 3 - Kennebec 98.53% 398 CMA466A Maine 4 - Washington 99.66% 399 CMA467A Maryland 1 - Garrett 99.84% 400 CMA468A Maryland 2 - Kent 99.45% 401 CMA469A Maryland 3 - Frederick 99.95% 402 CMA470A Massachusetts 1 - Franklin 99.67% 403 CMA471A Massachusetts 2 - Barnstable 99.78% 404 CMA472A Michigan 1 - Gogebic 96.21% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 46 405 CMA473A Michigan 2 - Alger 99.84% 406 CMA474A Michigan 3 - Emmet 99.97% 407 CMA475A Michigan 4 - Cheboygan 99.96% 408 CMA476A Michigan 5 - Manistee 99.82% 409 CMA477A Michigan 6 - Roscommon 99.90% 410 CMA478A Michigan 7 - Newaygo 99.98% 411 CMA479A Michigan 8 - Allegan 99.93% 412 CMA480A Michigan 9 - Cass 100.00% 413 CMA481A Michigan 10 - Tuscola 99.93% 414 CMA486A Minnesota 5 - Wilkin 95.65% 415 CMA487A Minnesota 6 - Hubbard 99.94% 416 CMA488A Minnesota 7 - Chippewa 97.97% 417 CMA489A Minnesota 8 - Lac qui Parle 99.61% 418 CMA490A Minnesota 9 - Pipestone 100.00% 419 CMA491A Minnesota 10 - Le Sueur 99.56% 420 CMA492A Minnesota 11 - Goodhue 97.51% 421 CMA493A Mississippi 1 - Tunica 99.90% 422 CMA494A Mississippi 2 - Benton 100.00% 423 CMA495A Mississippi 3 - Bolivar 97.25% 424 CMA496A Mississippi 4 - Yalobusha 99.68% 425 CMA497A Mississippi 5 - Washington 96.14% 426 CMA498A Mississippi 6 - Montgomery 99.15% 427 CMA499A Mississippi 7 - Leake 100.00% 428 CMA500A Mississippi 8 - Claiborne 100.00% 429 CMA501A Mississippi 9 - Copiah 99.94% 430 CMA502A Mississippi 10 - Smith 97.84% 431 CMA503A Mississippi 11 - Lamar 99.88% 432 CMA504A Missouri 1 - Atchison 99.78% 433 CMA505A Missouri 2 - Harrison 99.48% 434 CMA506A Missouri 3 - Schuyler 98.56% 435 CMA507A Missouri 4 - De Kalb 99.49% 436 CMA508A Missouri 5 - Linn 98.47% 437 CMA509A Missouri 6 - Marion 99.41% 438 CMA510A Missouri 7 - Saline 99.58% 439 CMA511A Missouri 8 - Callaway 99.43% 440 CMA512A Missouri 9 - Bates 99.96% 441 CMA513A Missouri 10 - Benton 99.50% 442 CMA514A Missouri 11 - Moniteau 99.95% 443 CMA516A Missouri 13 - Washington 98.44% 444 CMA518A Missouri 15 - Stone 96.35% 445 CMA519A Missouri 16 - Laclede 98.67% 446 CMA520A Missouri 17 - Shannon 95.04% 447 CMA521A Missouri 18 - Perry 99.90% 448 CMA522A Missouri 19 - Stoddard 97.18% 449 CMA534A Nebraska 2 - Cherry 95.76% 450 CMA535A Nebraska 3 - Knox 99.63% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 47 451 CMA536A Nebraska 4 - Grant 95.23% 452 CMA537A Nebraska 5 - Boone 99.35% 453 CMA538A Nebraska 6 - Keith 98.93% 454 CMA539A Nebraska 7 - Hall 99.37% 455 CMA541A Nebraska 9 - Adams 99.82% 456 CMA542A Nebraska 10 - Cass 99.81% 457 CMA548A New Hampshire 1 - Coos 95.95% 458 CMA549A New Hampshire 2 - Carroll 99.84% 459 CMA550A New Jersey 1 - Hunterdon 100.00% 460 CMA551A New Jersey 2 - Ocean 99.88% 461 CMA552A New Jersey 3 - Sussex 99.99% 462 CMA559A New York 1 - Jefferson 99.97% 463 CMA560A New York 2 - Franklin 99.99% 464 CMA561A New York 3 - Chautauqua 100.00% 465 CMA562A New York 4 - Yates 100.00% 466 CMA563A New York 5 - Otsego 100.00% 467 CMA564A New York 6 - Columbia 100.00% 468 CMA565A North Carolina 1 - Cherokee 99.98% 469 CMA566A North Carolina 2 - Yancey 99.99% 470 CMA567A North Carolina 3 - Ashe 99.80% 471 CMA568A North Carolina 4 - Henderson 99.95% 472 CMA569A North Carolina 5 - Anson 98.57% 473 CMA570A North Carolina 6 - Chatham 99.84% 474 CMA571A North Carolina 7 - Rockingham 99.90% 475 CMA572A North Carolina 8 - Northampton 99.95% 476 CMA573A North Carolina 9 - Camden 98.27% 477 CMA574A North Carolina 10 - Harnett 97.76% 478 CMA575A North Carolina 11 - Hoke 97.08% 479 CMA576A North Carolina 12 - Sampson 98.73% 480 CMA577A North Carolina 13 - Greene 99.88% 481 CMA578A North Carolina 14 - Pitt 97.18% 482 CMA579A North Carolina 15 - Cabarrus 99.99% 483 CMA583A North Dakota 4 - McKenzie 96.52% 484 CMA584A North Dakota 5 - Kidder 99.20% 485 CMA585A Ohio 1 - Williams 100.01% 486 CMA586A Ohio 2 - Sandusky 99.95% 487 CMA587A Ohio 3 - Ashtabula 99.88% 488 CMA588A Ohio 4 - Mercer 99.86% 489 CMA589A Ohio 5 - Hancock 99.16% 490 CMA590A Ohio 6 - Morrow 99.99% 491 CMA591A Ohio 7 - Tuscarawas 99.60% 492 CMA592A Ohio 8 - Clinton 99.54% 493 CMA593A Ohio 9 - Ross 99.88% 494 CMA594A Ohio 10 - Perry 98.59% 495 CMA595A Ohio 11 - Columbiana 99.99% 496 CMA598A Oklahoma 3 - Grant 98.34% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 48 497 CMA599A Oklahoma 4 - Nowata 97.62% 498 CMA600A Oklahoma 5 - Roger Mills 99.34% 499 CMA601A Oklahoma 6 - Seminole 99.33% 500 CMA602A Oklahoma 7 - Beckham 99.94% 501 CMA603A Oklahoma 8 - Jackson 99.13% 502 CMA604A Oklahoma 9 - Garvin 97.66% 503 CMA605A Oklahoma 10 - Haskell 98.77% 504 CMA606A Oregon 1 - Clatsop 99.96% 505 CMA607A Oregon 2 - Hood River 99.78% 506 CMA609A Oregon 4 - Lincoln 99.94% 507 CMA610A Oregon 5 - Coos 97.07% 508 CMA612A Pennsylvania 1 - Crawford 100.00% 509 CMA613A Pennsylvania 2 - McKean 99.76% 510 CMA614A Pennsylvania 3 - Potter 98.87% 511 CMA615A Pennsylvania 4 - Bradford 100.00% 512 CMA616A Pennsylvania 5 - Wayne 99.95% 513 CMA617A Pennsylvania 6 - Lawrence 100.00% 514 CMA618A Pennsylvania 7 - Jefferson 99.94% 515 CMA619A Pennsylvania 8 - Union 99.98% 516 CMA620A Pennsylvania 9 - Greene 99.95% 517 CMA621A Pennsylvania 10 - Bedford 99.88% 518 CMA622A Pennsylvania 11 - Huntingdon 100.00% 519 CMA623A Pennsylvania 12 - Lebanon 100.00% 520 CMA624A Rhode Island 1 - Newport 100.00% 521 CMA625A South Carolina 1 - Oconee 99.93% 522 CMA626A South Carolina 2 - Laurens 99.89% 523 CMA627A South Carolina 3 - Cherokee 99.98% 524 CMA628A South Carolina 4 - Chesterfield 96.50% 525 CMA629A South Carolina 5 - Georgetown 99.95% 526 CMA630A South Carolina 6 - Clarendon 99.85% 527 CMA631A South Carolina 7 - Calhoun 99.97% 528 CMA632A South Carolina 8 - Hampton 99.75% 529 CMA633A South Carolina 9 - Lancaster 99.90% 530 CMA637A South Dakota 4 - Marshall 98.06% 531 CMA640A South Dakota 7 - Sully 99.66% 532 CMA641A South Dakota 8 - Kingsbury 99.32% 533 CMA642A South Dakota 9 - Hanson 98.91% 534 CMA643A Tennessee 1 - Lake 99.91% 535 CMA644A Tennessee 2 - Cannon 99.99% 536 CMA645A Tennessee 3 - Macon 99.95% 537 CMA646A Tennessee 4 - Hamblen 98.79% 538 CMA647A Tennessee 5 - Fayette 99.85% 539 CMA648A Tennessee 6 - Giles 99.86% 540 CMA649A Tennessee 7 - Bledsoe 100.00% 541 CMA650A Tennessee 8 - Johnson 100.00% 542 CMA651A Tennessee 9 - Maury 100.00% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 49 543 CMA653A Texas 2 - Hansford 95.61% 544 CMA655A Texas 4 - Briscoe 99.98% 545 CMA657A Texas 6 - Jack 97.92% 546 CMA658A Texas 7 - Fanni 99.43% 547 CMA660A Texas 9 - Runnels 99.75% 548 CMA661A Texas 10 - Navarro 99.92% 549 CMA662A Texas 11 - Cherokee 99.64% 550 CMA664A Texas 13 - Reeves 97.71% 551 CMA666A Texas 15 - Concho 98.15% 552 CMA667A Texas 16 - Burleson 99.63% 553 CMA668A Texas 17 - Newton 98.16% 554 CMA669A Texas 18 - Edwards 98.85% 555 CMA670A Texas 19 - Atascosa 98.36% 556 CMA671A Texas 20 - Wilson 99.72% 557 CMA679A Vermont 1 - Franklin 99.30% 558 CMA680A Vermont 2 - Addison 99.99% 559 CMA681A Virginia 1 - Lee 99.96% 560 CMA682A Virginia 2 - Tazewell 99.64% 561 CMA683A Virginia 3 - Giles 99.94% 562 CMA684A Virginia 4 - Bedford 99.92% 563 CMA685A Virginia 5 - Bath 96.23% 564 CMA686A Virginia 6 - Highland 99.92% 565 CMA687A Virginia 7 - Buckingham 96.22% 566 CMA688A Virginia 8 - Amelia 99.93% 567 CMA689A Virginia 9 - Greensville 97.35% 568 CMA690A Virginia 10 - Frederick 99.98% 569 CMA691A Virginia 11 - Madison 100.00% 570 CMA692A Virginia 12 - Caroline 99.94% 571 CMA695A Washington 3 - Ferry 99.16% 572 CMA697A Washington 5 - Kittitas 99.28% 573 CMA700A Washington 8 - Whitman 96.84% 574 CMA702A West Virginia 2 - Wetzel 99.80% 575 CMA703A West Virginia 3 - Monongalia 100.00% 576 CMA704A West Virginia 4 - Grant 99.92% 577 CMA705A West Virginia 5 - Tucker 99.10% 578 CMA706A West Virginia 6 - Lincoln 100.00% 579 CMA707A West Virginia 7 - Raleigh 100.00% 580 CMA708A Wisconsin 1 - Burnett 99.73% 581 CMA710A Wisconsin 3 - Vilas 100.00% 582 CMA711A Wisconsin 4 - Marinette 100.01% 583 CMA712A Wisconsin 5 - Pierce 98.74% 584 CMA713A Wisconsin 6 - Trempealeau 99.68% 585 CMA714A Wisconsin 7 - Wood 99.66% 586 CMA715A Wisconsin 8 - Vernon 99.22% 587 CMA716A Wisconsin 9 - Columbia 99.98% 588 CMA717A Wisconsin 10 - Door 100.00% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 50 589 CMA723A Puerto Rico 1 - Rincon 100.00% 590 CMA724A Puerto Rico 2 - Adjuntas 100.00% 591 CMA725A Puerto Rico 3 - Ciales 100.00% 592 CMA726A Puerto Rico 4 - Aibonito 100.00% 593 CMA727A Puerto Rico 5 - Ceiba 100.00% 594 CMA728A Puerto Rico 6 - Vieques 100.00% 595 CMA729A Puerto Rico 7 - Culebra 100.00% 596 CMA730A Virgin Islands 1 - St.Thomas Island 100.00% 597 CMA731A Virgin Islands 2 - St. Croix Island 100.00% 598 CMA732A Guam 100.00% Block A < 95% But No Contiguous 50 Sq Mi Area CMA DESC A-Block Percent Licensed Area 1 CMA169A Mayaguez, PR 90.46% 2 CMA733A American Samoa 70.68% 3 CMA734A Northern Mariana Islands 64.82% Block B >= 95% CMA DESC A-Block Percent Licensed Area 1 CMA001B New York, NY-NJ/Nassau-Suffolk, NY/Newark, Jersey 99.23% 2 CMA002B Los Angeles-Long Beach/Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Gr 96.16% 3 CMA003B Chicago, IL 100.00% 4 CMA004B Philadelphia, PA 100.00% 5 CMA005B Detroit/Ann Arbor, MI 99.96% 6 CMA006B Boston-Lowell-Brockton-Lawrence-Haverhill, MA-NH 99.42% 7 CMA007B San Francisco-Oakland, CA 99.05% 8 CMA008B Washington, DC-MD-VA 96.00% 9 CMA009B Dallas-Forth Worth, TX 100.00% 10 CMA010B Houston, TX 99.68% 11 CMA011B St. Louis, MO-IL 100.00% 12 CMA012B Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, FL 97.15% 13 CMA013B Pittsburgh, PA 99.83% 14 CMA014B Baltimore, MD 98.70% 15 CMA015B Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 99.70% 16 CMA016B Cleveland, OH 100.00% 17 CMA017B Atlanta, GA 100.00% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 51 18 CMA019B Denver-Boulder, CO 96.07% 19 CMA021B Milwaukee, WI 100.00% 20 CMA022B Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 99.93% 21 CMA023B Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 99.98% 22 CMA024B Kansas City, MO-KS 97.91% 23 CMA025B Buffalo, NY 100.00% 24 CMA027B San Jose, CA 99.95% 25 CMA028B Indianapolis, IN 100.00% 26 CMA030B Portland, OR-WA 98.23% 27 CMA031B Columbus, OH 99.99% 28 CMA032B Hartford-New Britain-Bristol, CT 100.00% 29 CMA033B San Antonio, TX 99.88% 30 CMA034B Rochester, NY 99.90% 31 CMA035B Sacramento, CA 99.71% 32 CMA036B Memphis, TN-AR-MS 99.74% 33 CMA037B Louisville, KY-IN 99.95% 34 CMA038B Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket, RI 100.00% 35 CMA040B Dayton, OH 99.95% 36 CMA041B Birmingham, AL 99.46% 37 CMA042B Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk-Danbury, CT 100.00% 38 CMA043B Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Portsmouth, VA/NC 97.74% 39 CMA044B Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 99.77% 40 CMA045B Oklahoma City, OK 99.87% 41 CMA046B Nashville-Davidson, TN 99.99% 42 CMA047B Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC 98.72% 43 CMA048B Toledo, OH-MI 99.63% 44 CMA049B New Haven-West Haven-Waterbury-Meriden, CT 99.88% 45 CMA050B Honolulu, HI 96.28% 46 CMA051B Jacksonville, FL 98.74% 47 CMA052B Akron, OH 100.00% 48 CMA053B Syracuse, NY 99.38% 49 CMA054B Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, IN 99.93% 50 CMA055B Worchester-Fitchburg-Leominster, MA 99.96% 51 CMA056B Northeast Pennsylvania, PA 98.30% 52 CMA057B Tulsa, OK 98.41% 53 CMA058B Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 99.03% 54 CMA059B Richmond, VA 99.99% 55 CMA060B Orlando, FL 100.00% 56 CMA061B Charlotte-Gastonia, NC 99.92% 57 CMA062B New Brunswick-Perth Amboy-Sayreville, NJ 99.81% 58 CMA063B Springfield-Chicopee-Holyoke, MA 100.00% 59 CMA064B Grand Rapids, MI 99.97% 60 CMA065B Omaha, NE-IA 99.95% 61 CMA066B Youngstown-Warren, OH 99.96% 62 CMA067B Greenville-Spartanburg, SC 99.97% 63 CMA068B Flint, MI 100.00% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 52 64 CMA069B Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD 99.93% 65 CMA070B Long Branch-Asbury Park, NJ 99.79% 66 CMA071B Raleigh-Durham, NC 99.89% 67 CMA072B West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL 97.81% 68 CMA075B Austin, TX 99.95% 69 CMA076B New Bedford-Fall River, MA 99.37% 70 CMA078B Lansing-East Lansing, MI 99.96% 71 CMA079B Knoxville, TN 98.90% 72 CMA080B Baton Rouge, LA 100.00% 73 CMA081B El Paso, TX 95.90% 74 CMA083B Mobile, AL 99.74% 75 CMA084B Harrisburg, PA 98.69% 76 CMA085B Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA 99.98% 77 CMA086B Albuquerque, NM 97.71% 78 CMA087B Canton, OH 100.00% 79 CMA088B Chattanooga, TN-GA 100.00% 80 CMA089B Wichita, KS 95.93% 81 CMA090B Charleston-North Charleston, SC 99.98% 82 CMA092B Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR 99.98% 83 CMA094B Saginaw-Bay City-Midland, MI 100.00% 84 CMA095B Columbia, SC 99.91% 85 CMA096B Fort Wayne, IN 99.43% 86 CMA098B Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA/IL 99.57% 87 CMA099B York, PA 99.97% 88 CMA100B Shreveport, Louisiana 99.72% 89 CMA101B Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 97.10% 90 CMA102B Des Moines, IA 100.00% 91 CMA103B Peoria, IL 99.93% 92 CMA105B Lancaster, PA 99.97% 93 CMA106B Jackson, MS 99.94% 94 CMA107B Stockton, CA 95.37% 95 CMA108B Augusta, GA/SC 98.48% 96 CMA109B Spokane, WA 99.83% 97 CMA110B Huntington-Ashland, WV/KY/OH 99.62% 98 CMA111B Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA 99.98% 99 CMA112B Corpus Christi, TX 99.96% 100 CMA113B Madison, WI 99.99% 101 CMA114B Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 99.86% 102 CMA115B Utica-Rome, NY 96.32% 103 CMA116B Lexington-Fayette, KY 99.96% 104 CMA118B Reading, PA 97.54% 105 CMA119B Evansville, IN/KY 100.00% 106 CMA120B Huntsville, AL 99.25% 107 CMA121B Trenton, NJ 99.60% 108 CMA122B Binghamton, NY 100.00% 109 CMA123B Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA 99.83% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 53 110 CMA124B Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA 99.06% 111 CMA125B Appleton-Oskosh-Neenah, WI 99.82% 112 CMA126B Salinas-Seaside-Monterey, CA 99.70% 113 CMA127B Pensacola, FL 100.00% 114 CMA128B McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 99.90% 115 CMA129B South Bend-Mishawaka, IN 99.98% 116 CMA130B Erie, PA 99.78% 117 CMA131B Rockford, IL 99.99% 118 CMA132B Kalamazoo, MI 99.99% 119 CMA133B Manchester-Nashua, NH 99.97% 120 CMA134B Atlantic City, NJ 99.96% 121 CMA136B Lorain-Elyria, OH 100.00% 122 CMA137B Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, FL 100.00% 123 CMA138B Macon-Warner Robins, GA 99.99% 124 CMA139B Montgomery, AL 99.96% 125 CMA140B Charleston, WV 99.95% 126 CMA142B Modesto, CA 98.63% 127 CMA144B Orange County, NY 99.97% 128 CMA145B Hamilton-Middletown, OH 100.00% 129 CMA146B Daytona Beach, FL 100.00% 130 CMA147B Ponce, PR 99.47% 131 CMA148B Salem, OR 98.29% 132 CMA149B Fayetteville, NC 99.74% 133 CMA151B Poughkeepsie, NY 100.00% 134 CMA152B Portland, ME 99.55% 135 CMA153B Columbus, GA-AL 99.99% 136 CMA154B New London-Norwich, CT 99.94% 137 CMA155B Savannah, GA 99.58% 138 CMA156B Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH-ME 99.77% 139 CMA158B Lima, OH 98.42% 140 CMA159B Provo-Orem, UT 96.68% 141 CMA160B Killeen-Temple, TX 100.00% 142 CMA161B Lubbock, TX Counties - Lubbock 97.54% 143 CMA162B Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 99.22% 144 CMA163B Springfield, MO 98.43% 145 CMA164B Fort Myers, FL Counties - Lee 100.00% 146 CMA165B Fort Smith, AK-OK 100.00% 147 CMA166B Hickory, NC 96.38% 148 CMA167B Sarasota, FL 99.89% 149 CMA168B Tallahassee, FL 99.99% 150 CMA170B Galveston-Texas City, TX 99.17% 151 CMA172B Lincoln, NE 99.98% 152 CMA173B Biloxi-Gulfport, MS 95.04% 153 CMA174B Lafayette, LA 100.00% 154 CMA175B Santa Cruz, CA 99.79% 155 CMA176B Springfield, IL 97.28% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 54 156 CMA177B Battle Creek, MI 100.00% 157 CMA178B Wheeling, WV-OH 99.56% 158 CMA179B Topeka, KS 99.88% 159 CMA180B Springfield, OH 99.85% 160 CMA181B Muskegon, MI 100.00% 161 CMA182B Fayetteville-Springdale, AK 99.93% 162 CMA183B Asheville, NC 95.58% 163 CMA185B Terre Haute, IN 99.64% 164 CMA186B Green Bay, WI 99.73% 165 CMA188B Amarillo, TX 98.21% 166 CMA189B Racine, WI 99.92% 167 CMA190B Boise City, ID 99.95% 168 CMA192B Gainesville, FL 99.99% 169 CMA193B Benton Harbor, MI 100.00% 170 CMA194B Waco, TX 99.98% 171 CMA195B Cedar Rapids, IA 99.90% 172 CMA196B Champaign-Urbana-Rantoul, IL 99.95% 173 CMA197B Lake Charles, LA 99.96% 174 CMA198B St. Cloud, MN 99.89% 175 CMA199B Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV 99.98% 176 CMA200B Parkersburg-Marietta, OH-WV 99.18% 177 CMA201B Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA 99.92% 178 CMA203B Lynchburg, VA 99.39% 179 CMA205B Alexandria, LA 99.80% 180 CMA206B Longview-Marshall, TX 100.00% 181 CMA207B Jackson, MI 99.99% 182 CMA208B Fort Pierce, FL 98.95% 183 CMA209B Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN/KY 99.95% 184 CMA211B Bradenton, FL 99.91% 185 CMA213B Pittsfield, MA 100.00% 186 CMA214B Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA 98.53% 187 CMA216B Janesville-Beloit, WI 100.01% 188 CMA217B Anderson, IN 99.99% 189 CMA218B Wilmington, NC 100.00% 190 CMA219B Monroe, LA 99.98% 191 CMA220B Abilene, TX 100.00% 192 CMA222B Tuscaloosa, AL 99.98% 193 CMA223B Elkhart-Goshen, IN 99.99% 194 CMA224B Bangor, ME 96.12% 195 CMA225B Altoona, PA 97.62% 196 CMA226B Florence, AL 99.99% 197 CMA227B Anderson, SC 99.88% 198 CMA228B Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ 99.64% 199 CMA229B Medford, OR 95.48% 200 CMA230B Decatur, IL 99.96% 201 CMA231B Mansfield, OH 99.98% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 55 202 CMA232B Eau Claire, WI 99.38% 203 CMA233B Wichita Falls, TX 99.34% 204 CMA234B Athens, GA 100.00% 205 CMA235B Petersburg-Colonial Heights-Hopewell, VA 99.99% 206 CMA236B Muncie, IN 100.00% 207 CMA237B Tyler, TX 99.88% 208 CMA238B Sharon, PA 99.73% 209 CMA239B Joplin, MO 100.02% 210 CMA240B Texarkana, TX - Texarkana, AR 99.59% 211 CMA241B Pueblo, CO 98.82% 212 CMA242B Olympia, WA 96.81% 213 CMA244B Kenosha, WI 100.00% 214 CMA245B Ocala, FL 99.85% 215 CMA246B Dothan, AL 99.93% 216 CMA247B Lafayette, IN 100.00% 217 CMA248B Burlington, VT 99.95% 218 CMA249B Anniston, AL 99.92% 219 CMA250B Bloomington-Normal, IL 99.82% 220 CMA251B Williamsport, PA 99.21% 221 CMA252B Pascagoula, MS 98.27% 222 CMA253B Sioux City, IA-NE 98.48% 223 CMA254B Redding, CA 99.85% 224 CMA255B Odessa, TX 100.00% 225 CMA256B Charlottesville, VA 99.51% 226 CMA257B Hagerstown, MD 99.60% 227 CMA258B Jacksonville, NC 99.59% 228 CMA259B State College, PA 98.94% 229 CMA260B Lawton, OK 98.97% 230 CMA261B Albany, GA 97.43% 231 CMA262B Danville, VA 99.52% 232 CMA263B Wausau, WI 99.46% 233 CMA264B Florence, SC 99.77% 234 CMA265B Fort Walton Beach, FL 99.99% 235 CMA266B Glens Falls, NY 97.89% 236 CMA267B Sioux Falls, SD 99.98% 237 CMA269B Cumberland, MD-WV 99.65% 238 CMA271B Kokomo, IN 99.93% 239 CMA272B Gadsden, AL 99.82% 240 CMA273B Kankakee, IL 99.96% 241 CMA274B Yuba City, CA 99.70% 242 CMA275B St. Joseph, MO 100.01% 243 CMA276B Grand Forks, ND-MN 96.48% 244 CMA277B Sheboygan, WI 100.00% 245 CMA278B Columbia, MO 99.93% 246 CMA279B Lewiston-Auburn, ME 99.88% 247 CMA280B Burlington, NC 99.95% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 56 248 CMA281B Laredo, TX 99.95% 249 CMA282B Bloomington, IN 100.00% 250 CMA283B Panama City, FL 99.99% 251 CMA284B Elmira, NY 99.57% 252 CMA286B Dubuque, IA 100.00% 253 CMA287B Bryan-College Station, TX 99.85% 254 CMA288B Rochester, MN 99.99% 255 CMA290B La Crosse, WI 99.52% 256 CMA291B Pine Bluff, AK 99.82% 257 CMA292B Sherman-Denison, TX 99.87% 258 CMA293B Owensboro, KY 99.77% 259 CMA295B Midland, TX 100.00% 260 CMA296B Iowa City, IA 99.99% 261 CMA298B Bismarck, ND 95.18% 262 CMA300B Victoria, TX 99.91% 263 CMA301B Lawrence, KS 99.96% 264 CMA302B Enid, OK 99.94% 265 CMA303B Aurora-Elgin, IL 99.97% 266 CMA304B Joliet, IL 99.91% 267 CMA307B Alabama 1 - Franklin 99.87% 268 CMA308B Alabama 2 - Jackson 99.99% 269 CMA309B Alabama 3 - Lamar 96.47% 270 CMA310B Alabama 4 - Bibb 99.97% 271 CMA311B Alabama 5 - Cleburne 99.46% 272 CMA312B Alabama 6 - Washington 96.48% 273 CMA313B Alabama 7 - Butler 99.77% 274 CMA314B Alabama 8 - Lee 99.48% 275 CMA319B Arizona 2 - Coconino 96.12% 276 CMA322B Arizona 5 - Gila 95.06% 277 CMA324B Arkansas 1 - Madison 98.96% 278 CMA325B Arkansas 2 - Marion 98.85% 279 CMA326B Arkansas 3 - Sharp 99.86% 280 CMA327B Arkansas 4 - Clay 99.88% 281 CMA328B Arkansas 5 - Cross 99.87% 282 CMA329B Arkansas 6 - Cleburne 99.85% 283 CMA330B Arkansas 7 - Pope 99.80% 284 CMA331B Arkansas 8 - Franklin 99.78% 285 CMA332B Arkansas 9 - Polk 100.00% 286 CMA333B Arkansas 10 - Garland 100.00% 287 CMA334B Arkansas 11 - Hempstead 99.98% 288 CMA335B Arkansas 12 - Ouachita 97.92% 289 CMA339B California 4 - Madera 95.09% 290 CMA340B California 5 - San Luis Obispo 99.73% 291 CMA347B California 12 - Kings 99.02% 292 CMA348B Colorado 1 - Moffat 97.30% 293 CMA357B Connecticut 1 - Litchfield 99.93% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 57 294 CMA358B Connecticut 2 - Windham 100.00% 295 CMA359B Delaware 1 - Kent 100.00% 296 CMA360B Florida 1 - Collier 99.26% 297 CMA361B Florida 2 - Glades 96.48% 298 CMA362B Florida 3 - Hardee 98.77% 299 CMA363B Florida 4 - Citrus 99.72% 300 CMA364B Florida 5 - Putnam 99.99% 301 CMA365B Florida 6 - Dixie 99.98% 302 CMA366B Florida 7 - Hamilton 100.00% 303 CMA367B Florida 8 - Jefferson 99.90% 304 CMA368B Florida 9 - Calhoun 99.42% 305 CMA369B Florida 10 - Walton 99.04% 306 CMA371B Georgia 1 - Whitfield 99.92% 307 CMA372B Georgia 2 - Dawson 99.91% 308 CMA373B Georgia 3 - Chattooga 100.00% 309 CMA374B Georgia 4 - Jasper 99.64% 310 CMA375B Georgia 5 - Haralson 99.67% 311 CMA376B Georgia 6 - Spalding 99.87% 312 CMA377B Georgia 7 - Hancock 99.90% 313 CMA378B Georgia 8 - Warren 98.64% 314 CMA379B Georgia 9 - Marion 97.23% 315 CMA380B Georgia 10 - Bleckley 99.40% 316 CMA381B Georgia 11 - Toombs 99.11% 317 CMA382B Georgia 12 - Liberty 97.89% 318 CMA383B Georgia 13 - Early 99.90% 319 CMA384B Georgia 14 - Worth 99.99% 320 CMA386B Hawaii 2 - Maui 98.76% 321 CMA387B Hawaii 3 - Hawaii 96.97% 322 CMA393B Idaho 6 - Clark 95.48% 323 CMA394B Illinois 1 - Jo Daviess 99.65% 324 CMA395B Illinois 2 - Bureau 99.43% 325 CMA396B Illinois 3 - Mercer 97.91% 326 CMA397B Illinois 4 - Adams 99.13% 327 CMA399B Illinois 6 - Montgomery 99.15% 328 CMA400B Illinois 7 - Vermilion 99.72% 329 CMA401B Illinois 8 - Washington 99.50% 330 CMA402B Illinois 9 - Clay 99.27% 331 CMA403B Indiana 1 - Newton 99.88% 332 CMA404B Indiana 2 - Kosciusko 100.00% 333 CMA405B Indiana 3 - Huntington 99.98% 334 CMA406B Indiana 4 - Miami 99.83% 335 CMA407B Indiana 5 - Warren 99.99% 336 CMA408B Indiana 6 - Randolph 99.97% 337 CMA409B Indiana 7 - Owen 99.95% 338 CMA410B Indiana 8 - Brown 99.98% 339 CMA411B Indiana 9 - Decatur 99.07% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 58 340 CMA412B Iowa 1 - Mills 99.61% 341 CMA413B Iowa 2 - Union 99.97% 342 CMA414B Iowa 3 - Monroe 99.70% 343 CMA415B Iowa 4 - Muscatine 99.43% 344 CMA416B Iowa 5 - Jackson 100.00% 345 CMA417B Iowa 6 - Iowa 99.45% 346 CMA418B Iowa 7 - Audubon 99.81% 347 CMA419B Iowa 8 - Monona 99.95% 348 CMA420B Iowa 9 - Ida 99.96% 349 CMA421B Iowa 10 - Humbolt 99.94% 350 CMA422B Iowa 11 - Hardin 99.96% 351 CMA423B Iowa 12 - Winneshiek 99.59% 352 CMA424B Iowa 13 - Mitchell 99.64% 353 CMA425B Iowa 14 - Kossuth 99.66% 354 CMA426B Iowa 15 - Dickinson 99.89% 355 CMA427B Iowa 16 - Lyon 98.82% 356 CMA429B Kansas 2 - Norton 98.72% 357 CMA430B Kansas 3 - Jewell 99.98% 358 CMA431B Kansas 4 - Marshall 99.97% 359 CMA432B Kansas 5 - Brown 97.91% 360 CMA434B Kansas 7 - Trego 99.58% 361 CMA435B Kansas 8 - Ellsworth 98.04% 362 CMA436B Kansas 9 - Morris 98.98% 363 CMA437B Kansas 10 - Franklin 99.65% 364 CMA439B Kansas 12 - Hodgeman 95.55% 365 CMA440B Kansas 13 - Edwards 97.57% 366 CMA441B Kansas 14 - Reno 95.56% 367 CMA442B Kansas 15 - Elk 99.89% 368 CMA443B Kentucky 1 - Fulton 99.97% 369 CMA444B Kentucky 2 - Union 96.73% 370 CMA445B Kentucky 3 - Meade 100.00% 371 CMA446B Kentucky 4 - Spencer 100.00% 372 CMA447B Kentucky 5 - Barren 100.00% 373 CMA448B Kentucky 6 - Madison 99.95% 374 CMA449B Kentucky 7 - Trimble 99.98% 375 CMA450B Kentucky 8 - Mason 99.97% 376 CMA451B Kentucky 9 - Elliott 100.00% 377 CMA452B Kentucky 10 - Powell 99.96% 378 CMA453B Kentucky 11 - Clay 99.99% 379 CMA454B Louisiana 1 - Claiborne 99.97% 380 CMA455B Louisiana 2 - Morehouse 95.81% 381 CMA456B Louisiana 3 - De Soto 98.40% 382 CMA457B Louisiana 4 - Caldwell 99.80% 383 CMA458B Louisiana 5 - Beauregard 99.34% 384 CMA459B Louisiana 6 - Iberville 95.44% 385 CMA460B Louisiana 7 - West Feliciana 97.95% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 59 386 CMA461B Louisiana 8 - St. James 100.00% 387 CMA463B Maine 1 - Oxford 97.28% 388 CMA465B Maine 3 - Kennebec 98.94% 389 CMA466B Maine 4 - Washington 99.13% 390 CMA467B Maryland 1 - Garrett 100.01% 391 CMA468B Maryland 2 - Kent 97.22% 392 CMA469B Maryland 3 - Frederick 99.21% 393 CMA470B Massachusetts 1 - Franklin 100.00% 394 CMA471B Massachusetts 2 - Barnstable 98.05% 395 CMA472B Michigan 1 - Gogebic 96.62% 396 CMA473B Michigan 2 - Alger 96.15% 397 CMA474B Michigan 3 - Emmet 99.68% 398 CMA475B Michigan 4 - Cheboygan 99.76% 399 CMA476B Michigan 5 - Manistee 99.78% 400 CMA477B Michigan 6 - Roscommon 99.83% 401 CMA478B Michigan 7 - Newaygo 100.00% 402 CMA479B Michigan 8 - Allegan 99.94% 403 CMA480B Michigan 9 - Cass 100.00% 404 CMA481B Michigan 10 - Tuscola 99.74% 405 CMA482B Minnesota 1 - Kittson 98.50% 406 CMA486B Minnesota 5 - Wilkin 99.94% 407 CMA487B Minnesota 6 - Hubbard 98.42% 408 CMA488B Minnesota 7 - Chippewa 98.06% 409 CMA489B Minnesota 8 - Lac qui Parle 100.01% 410 CMA490B Minnesota 9 - Pipestone 98.54% 411 CMA491B Minnesota 10 - Le Sueur 99.98% 412 CMA492B Minnesota 11 - Goodhue 99.98% 413 CMA493B Mississippi 1 - Tunica 99.71% 414 CMA494B Mississippi 2 - Benton 100.00% 415 CMA495B Mississippi 3 - Bolivar 99.78% 416 CMA498B Mississippi 6 - Montgomery 99.76% 417 CMA499B Mississippi 7 - Leake 99.97% 418 CMA500B Mississippi 8 - Claiborne 99.38% 419 CMA501B Mississippi 9 - Copiah 98.15% 420 CMA502B Mississippi 10 - Smith 99.14% 421 CMA503B Mississippi 11 - Lamar 98.92% 422 CMA504B Missouri 1 - Atchison 99.92% 423 CMA505B Missouri 2 - Harrison 99.22% 424 CMA507B Missouri 4 - De Kalb 99.99% 425 CMA508B Missouri 5 - Linn 99.57% 426 CMA509B Missouri 6 - Marion 99.09% 427 CMA510B Missouri 7 - Saline 99.90% 428 CMA511B Missouri 8 - Callaway 99.86% 429 CMA512B Missouri 9 - Bates 98.83% 430 CMA513B Missouri 10 - Benton 99.91% 431 CMA514B Missouri 11 - Moniteau 100.00% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 60 432 CMA515B Missouri 12 - Maries 99.98% 433 CMA516B Missouri 13 - Washington 99.93% 434 CMA517B Missouri 14 - Barton 96.35% 435 CMA518B Missouri 15 - Stone 99.98% 436 CMA519B Missouri 16 - Laclede 99.94% 437 CMA520B Missouri 17 - Shannon 99.99% 438 CMA521B Missouri 18 - Perry 100.00% 439 CMA522B Missouri 19 - Stoddard 99.97% 440 CMA535B Nebraska 3 - Knox 97.72% 441 CMA537B Nebraska 5 - Boone 99.89% 442 CMA538B Nebraska 6 - Keith 98.14% 443 CMA539B Nebraska 7 - Hall 99.99% 444 CMA541B Nebraska 9 - Adams 98.81% 445 CMA542B Nebraska 10 - Cass 99.90% 446 CMA549B New Hampshire 2 - Carroll 99.30% 447 CMA550B New Jersey 1 - Hunterdon 99.82% 448 CMA551B New Jersey 2 - Ocean 99.73% 449 CMA552B New Jersey 3 - Sussex 99.92% 450 CMA554B New Mexico 2 - Colfax 99.22% 451 CMA556B New Mexico 4 - Santa Fe 99.54% 452 CMA559B New York 1 - Jefferson 99.20% 453 CMA560B New York 2 - Franklin 99.60% 454 CMA561B New York 3 - Chautauqua 99.91% 455 CMA562B New York 4 - Yates 99.65% 456 CMA563B New York 5 - Otsego 99.23% 457 CMA564B New York 6 - Columbia 99.84% 458 CMA565B North Carolina 1 - Cherokee 99.98% 459 CMA566B North Carolina 2 - Yancey 99.44% 460 CMA567B North Carolina 3 - Ashe 99.88% 461 CMA568B North Carolina 4 - Henderson 99.90% 462 CMA569B North Carolina 5 - Anson 99.41% 463 CMA570B North Carolina 6 - Chatham 100.00% 464 CMA571B North Carolina 7 - Rockingham 100.00% 465 CMA572B North Carolina 8 - Northampton 99.90% 466 CMA573B North Carolina 9 - Camden 97.81% 467 CMA574B North Carolina 10 - Harnett 99.98% 468 CMA575B North Carolina 11 - Hoke 100.01% 469 CMA576B North Carolina 12 - Sampson 100.00% 470 CMA577B North Carolina 13 - Greene 98.26% 471 CMA579B North Carolina 15 - Cabarrus 99.18% 472 CMA582B North Dakota 3 - Barnes 97.68% 473 CMA585B Ohio 1 - Williams 98.70% 474 CMA586B Ohio 2 - Sandusky 99.94% 475 CMA587B Ohio 3 - Ashtabula 99.81% 476 CMA588B Ohio 4 - Mercer 99.99% 477 CMA589B Ohio 5 - Hancock 99.98% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 61 478 CMA590B Ohio 6 - Morrow 99.95% 479 CMA591B Ohio 7 - Tuscarawas 99.98% 480 CMA592B Ohio 8 - Clinton 99.91% 481 CMA593B Ohio 9 - Ross 99.91% 482 CMA594B Ohio 10 - Perry 99.98% 483 CMA595B Ohio 11 - Columbiana 99.92% 484 CMA596B Oklahoma 1 - Cimarron 99.41% 485 CMA597B Oklahoma 2 - Harper 99.27% 486 CMA598B Oklahoma 3 - Grant 99.71% 487 CMA599B Oklahoma 4 - Nowata 99.92% 488 CMA600B Oklahoma 5 - Roger Mills 96.41% 489 CMA601B Oklahoma 6 - Seminole 99.56% 490 CMA602B Oklahoma 7 - Beckham 98.54% 491 CMA603B Oklahoma 8 - Jackson 96.77% 492 CMA604B Oklahoma 9 - Garvin 99.91% 493 CMA605B Oklahoma 10 - Haskell 97.66% 494 CMA606B Oregon 1 - Clatsop 99.23% 495 CMA609B Oregon 4 - Lincoln 97.27% 496 CMA612B Pennsylvania 1 - Crawford 100.00% 497 CMA613B Pennsylvania 2 - McKean 100.00% 498 CMA614B Pennsylvania 3 - Potter 96.44% 499 CMA615B Pennsylvania 4 - Bradford 97.04% 500 CMA616B Pennsylvania 5 - Wayne 100.00% 501 CMA617B Pennsylvania 6 - Lawrence 99.24% 502 CMA618B Pennsylvania 7 - Jefferson 99.97% 503 CMA619B Pennsylvania 8 - Union 99.97% 504 CMA620B Pennsylvania 9 - Greene 99.95% 505 CMA621B Pennsylvania 10 - Bedford 99.94% 506 CMA622B Pennsylvania 11 - Huntingdon 98.98% 507 CMA623B Pennsylvania 12 - Lebanon 100.01% 508 CMA624B Rhode Island 1 - Newport 100.00% 509 CMA625B South Carolina 1 - Oconee 98.20% 510 CMA626B South Carolina 2 - Laurens 99.51% 511 CMA627B South Carolina 3 - Cherokee 99.13% 512 CMA628B South Carolina 4 - Chesterfield 99.90% 513 CMA629B South Carolina 5 - Georgetown 100.00% 514 CMA630B South Carolina 6 - Clarendon 100.00% 515 CMA631B South Carolina 7 - Calhoun 99.93% 516 CMA632B South Carolina 8 - Hampton 98.32% 517 CMA633B South Carolina 9 - Lancaster 99.90% 518 CMA636B South Dakota 3 - McPherson 97.08% 519 CMA637B South Dakota 4 - Marshall 99.98% 520 CMA638B South Dakota 5 - Custer 99.95% 521 CMA640B South Dakota 7 - Sully 99.13% 522 CMA641B South Dakota 8 - Kingsbury 97.89% 523 CMA642B South Dakota 9 - Hanson 98.83% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 62 524 CMA643B Tennessee 1 - Lake 99.80% 525 CMA644B Tennessee 2 - Cannon 99.98% 526 CMA645B Tennessee 3 - Macon 97.96% 527 CMA646B Tennessee 4 - Hamblen 95.19% 528 CMA647B Tennessee 5 - Fayette 99.99% 529 CMA648B Tennessee 6 - Giles 100.00% 530 CMA649B Tennessee 7 - Bledsoe 97.86% 531 CMA650B Tennessee 8 - Johnson 100.00% 532 CMA651B Tennessee 9 - Maury 100.00% 533 CMA652B Texas 1 - Dallam 98.99% 534 CMA653B Texas 2 - Hansford 97.69% 535 CMA654B Texas 3 - Parmer 99.33% 536 CMA655B Texas 4 - Briscoe 97.32% 537 CMA657B Texas 6 - Jack 99.37% 538 CMA658B Texas 7 - Fanni 99.44% 539 CMA660B Texas 9 - Runnels 99.03% 540 CMA661B Texas 10 - Navarro 98.81% 541 CMA662B Texas 11 - Cherokee 99.09% 542 CMA666B Texas 15 - Concho 99.85% 543 CMA667B Texas 16 - Burleson 99.67% 544 CMA668B Texas 17 - Newton 99.63% 545 CMA669B Texas 18 - Edwards 98.75% 546 CMA670B Texas 19 - Atascosa 98.53% 547 CMA671B Texas 20 - Wilson 99.73% 548 CMA672B Texas 21 - Chambers 97.88% 549 CMA676B Utah 4 - Beaver 96.61% 550 CMA677B Utah 5 - Carbon 96.69% 551 CMA679B Vermont 1 - Franklin 99.61% 552 CMA680B Vermont 2 - Addison 99.94% 553 CMA681B Virginia 1 - Lee 99.41% 554 CMA682B Virginia 2 - Tazewell 98.73% 555 CMA683B Virginia 3 - Giles 99.95% 556 CMA684B Virginia 4 - Bedford 99.33% 557 CMA685B Virginia 5 - Bath 99.93% 558 CMA686B Virginia 6 - Highland 98.85% 559 CMA687B Virginia 7 - Buckingham 99.11% 560 CMA688B Virginia 8 - Amelia 97.67% 561 CMA689B Virginia 9 - Greensville 96.85% 562 CMA690B Virginia 10 - Frederick 99.07% 563 CMA691B Virginia 11 - Madison 99.41% 564 CMA692B Virginia 12 - Caroline 97.34% 565 CMA697B Washington 5 - Kittitas 98.12% 566 CMA698B Washington 6 - Pacific 96.31% 567 CMA701B West Virginia 1 - Mason 100.00% 568 CMA702B West Virginia 2 - Wetzel 100.00% 569 CMA703B West Virginia 3 - Monongalia 98.55% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 63 570 CMA706B West Virginia 6 - Lincoln 99.90% 571 CMA707B West Virginia 7 - Raleigh 99.31% 572 CMA708B Wisconsin 1 - Burnett 99.97% 573 CMA709B Wisconsin 2 - Bayfield 99.30% 574 CMA710B Wisconsin 3 - Vilas 100.00% 575 CMA711B Wisconsin 4 - Marinette 99.79% 576 CMA712B Wisconsin 5 - Pierce 100.00% 577 CMA713B Wisconsin 6 - Trempealeau 99.98% 578 CMA714B Wisconsin 7 - Wood 99.98% 579 CMA715B Wisconsin 8 - Vernon 99.85% 580 CMA716B Wisconsin 9 - Columbia 99.82% 581 CMA717B Wisconsin 10 - Door 100.00% 582 CMA723B Puerto Rico 1 - Rincon 100.00% 583 CMA724B Puerto Rico 2 - Adjuntas 99.36% 584 CMA725B Puerto Rico 3 - Ciales 95.09% 585 CMA726B Puerto Rico 4 - Aibonito 99.44% 586 CMA727B Puerto Rico 5 - Ceiba 96.45% 587 CMA728B Puerto Rico 6 - Vieques 100.00% 588 CMA731B Virgin Islands 2 - St. Croix Island 100.00% 589 CMA732B Guam 99.01% Block B < 95% But No Contiguous 50 Sq Mi Area CMA DESC B-Block Percent Licensed Area 1 CMA169B Mayaguez, PR 84.77% 2 CMA202B Arecibo, PR 82.90% 3 CMA204B Aguadilla, PR 89.17% 4 CMA305B Alton-Granite City, IL 90.44% 5 CMA729B Puerto Rico 7 - Culebra 87.08% 6 CMA730B Virgin Islands 1 - St.Thomas Island 86.05% 7 CMA733B American Samoa 70.68% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 64 APPENDIX D Maps Showing “Substantially Licensed” CMAs in (1) Block A, and (2) Block B (CMA Blocks that meet proposed test as of 01/11/2012) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 66 APPENDIX E Proposed Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Parts 1 and 22 as follows: PART 1 – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 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. Amend Section 1.919 by removing and reserving paragraph (c). Amend Section 1.929 by revising paragraph (b)(1), removing and reserving paragraph (b)(3), and adding a new 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. * * * * * (3) [Reserved] (4) Request for a Cellular Overlay Authorization. See § 22.985. * * * * * Amend Section 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 The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332. Amend Section 22.99 by removing the terms “Build-out transmitters,” “Extension,” “Five year build-out period,” and “Partitioned cellular market” and their definitions, and by revising the definition of “Cellular Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 67 markets,” and by revising the term “Unserved Area” and its definition, and by adding new terms and definitions, to 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. * * * * * 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). * * * * * Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 68 Substantially Licensed CMA Block. A CMA Block (A or B) where at least 95% 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. * * * Amend Section 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 cut-off 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. * * * * * Amend Section 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 section 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 section 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. * * * * * Remove Section 22.228. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 69 Revise Section 22.901 in its entirety 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. Revise Section 22.909 in its entirety, 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. Remove Section 22.912. Remove Section 22.929. See § 22.953. Revise Section 22.946 in its entirety 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. Revise Section 22.947 in its entirety 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% of the geographic area of the CMA Block within four years of the grant of the authorization, and over at least 70% 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. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 70 (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. Revise Section 22.948 in its entirety 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 § 22.948. (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 reduced-size 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 dBµV/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 § 22.948, 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. Revise Section 22.949 in its entirety to read as follows: Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 71 § 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 on-going 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. Amend Section 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. Amend Section 22.953 by revising the introductory text, paragraph (a), paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3), and (b), and by removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(10), and by adding a new paragraph (a)(11), and by reserving paragraph (c), 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 reduced-size PDF map (see paragraph (a)(2) of this section). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 72 (2) Exhibit II—Reduced-size PDF map. This map must be 8˝ × 11 inches (if possible, a proportional reduction of a 1:500,000 scale map). The map must 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)-(10) [Reserved] (11) Additional Information. The FCC may request information not specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) 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 § 22.953. (c) [Reserved] Remove Section 22.960. Remove the designation of Sections 22.961-22.967 as “[Reserved]”. Add new Section 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. Remove Section 22.969. Add a new Section 22.983 to part 22 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 dBµV/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. Add a new Section 22.985 to part 22 to read as follows: Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 73 § 22.985 Geographic area licensing via auctions. The licensing procedures in this § 22.985 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 % 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. Add a new Section 22.986 to part 22 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. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 74 APPENDIX F List of Additional “Covered Blocks” Subject to Certain Interim Filing Restrictions Data as of 1/11/2012 (See also Appendix C, Listing Blocks that meet proposed “Substantially Licensed” Test, which are also “Covered Blocks” for purposes of the Interim Filing Restrictions) A BLOCK CMA DESC A-Block Percent Licensed Area 1 CMA029A New Orleans, LA 94.36% 2 CMA093A Las Vegas, NV 90.59% 3 CMA117A Colorado Springs, CO 92.00% 4 CMA126A Salinas-Seaside-Monterey, CA 94.47% 5 CMA135A Eugene-Springfield, OR 94.36% 6 CMA169A Mayaguez, PR 90.46% 7 CMA224A Bangor, ME 91.74% 8 CMA241A Pueblo, CO 92.11% 9 CMA245A Ocala, FL 92.71% 10 CMA254A Redding, CA 93.85% 11 CMA268A Billings, MT 90.41% 12 CMA338A California 3 - Alpine 91.16% 13 CMA342A California 7 - Imperial 92.24% 14 CMA356A Colorado 9 - Costilla 91.99% 15 CMA415A Iowa 4 - Muscatine 93.90% 16 CMA428A Kansas 1 - Cheyenne 94.32% 17 CMA429A Kansas 2 - Norton 94.04% 18 CMA433A Kansas 6 - Wallace 90.77% 19 CMA436A Kansas 9 - Morris 94.65% 20 CMA439A Kansas 12 - Hodgeman 91.88% 21 CMA442A Kansas 15 - Elk 92.76% 22 CMA482A Minnesota 1 - Kittson 92.61% 23 CMA484A Minnesota 3 - Koochiching 91.54% 24 CMA515A Missouri 12 - Maries 94.93% 25 CMA517A Missouri 14 - Barton 94.65% 26 CMA528A Montana 6 - Deer Lodge 94.75% 27 CMA545A Nevada 3 - Storey 91.43% 28 CMA580A North Dakota 1 - Divide 94.22% 29 CMA581A North Dakota 2 - Bottineau 94.45% 30 CMA582A North Dakota 3 - Barnes 94.13% 31 CMA597A Oklahoma 2 - Harper 94.91% 32 CMA611A Oregon 6 - Crook 94.21% 33 CMA638A South Dakota 5 - Custer 94.92% 34 CMA639A South Dakota 6 - Haakon 93.64% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 75 35 CMA652A Texas 1 - Dallam 90.36% 36 CMA654A Texas 3 - Parmer 94.22% 37 CMA656A Texas 5 - Hardeman 93.95% 38 CMA694A Washington 2 - Okanogan 92.80% 39 CMA696A Washington 4 - Grays Harbor 92.14% 40 CMA699A Washington 7 - Skamania 93.68% 41 CMA709A Wisconsin 2 - Bayfield 92.77% B BLOCK CMA DESC B-Block Percent Licensed Area 1 CMA018B San Diego, CA 94.63% 2 CMA073B Oxnard-Simi Valley-Ventura, CA 92.05% 3 CMA082B Tacoma, WA 93.67% 4 CMA091B San Juan-Caguas, PR 91.41% 5 CMA093B Las Vegas, NV 92.69% 6 CMA097B Bakersfield, CA 91.19% 7 CMA104B Newport News-Hampton, VA 93.17% 8 CMA117B Colorado Springs, CO 91.95% 9 CMA141B Duluth, MN-WI 93.55% 10 CMA212B Bremerton, WA 94.70% 11 CMA215B Chico 92.19% 12 CMA221B Fargo-Moorehead, ND-MN 92.08% 13 CMA243B Greeley, CO 91.31% 14 CMA289B Rapid City, SD 90.01% 15 CMA305B Alton-Granite City, IL 90.44% 16 CMA323B Arizona 6 - Graham 91.47% 17 CMA336B California 1 - Del Norte 92.38% 18 CMA338B California 3 - Alpine 92.85% 19 CMA344B California 9 - Mendocino 91.52% 20 CMA345B California 10 - Sierra 90.28% 21 CMA346B California 11 - El Dorado 94.29% 22 CMA349B Colorado 2 - Logan 92.94% 23 CMA350B Colorado 3 - Garfield 90.70% 24 CMA351B Colorado 4 - Park 94.56% 25 CMA398B Illinois 5 - Mason 91.10% 26 CMA428B Kansas 1 - Cheyenne 94.55% 27 CMA433B Kansas 6 - Wallace 90.43% 28 CMA506B Missouri 3 - Schuyler 93.78% 29 CMA529B Montana 7 - Fergus 90.78% 30 CMA536B Nebraska 4 - Grant 94.53% 31 CMA540B Nebraska 8 - Chase 91.85% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 76 32 CMA578B North Carolina 14 - Pitt 93.07% 33 CMA610B Oregon 5 - Coos 94.62% 34 CMA634B South Dakota 1 - Harding 94.31% 35 CMA656B Texas 5 - Hardeman 94.78% 36 CMA659B Texas 8 - Gaines 93.42% 37 CMA675B Utah 3 - Juab 93.37% 38 CMA678B Utah 6 - Piute 93.17% 39 CMA696B Washington 4 - Grays Harbor 92.10% Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 77 APPENDIX G Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (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).2 In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3 A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 2. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes a transition for the 800 MHz Cellular (Cellular) Service from site-based 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 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. 3. 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.4 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% 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 1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601–612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 2 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). 3 Id. 4 As explained in the NPRM, each CMA has two channel Blocks: A and B. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 78 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. 4. 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, site-based licensing in such Blocks will ensure build-out within one year of authorization of such areas. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 dBµV/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. B. Legal Basis 8. 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. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 79 9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.5 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”6 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.7 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.8 10. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.9 First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA.10 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.”11 Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.12 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.”13 Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.14 We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,506 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”15 Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are 5 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3). 6 5 U.S.C. § 601(6). 7 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.” Id. 8 Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996). 9 See 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(3)–(6). 10 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” web.sba.gov/faqs (last visited May 6, 2011; figures are from 2009). 11 5 U.S.C. § 601(4). 12 INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010). 13 5 U.S.C. § 601(5). 14 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427 (2007). 15The 2007 U.S. Census data for small governmental organizations indicate that there were 89, 476 “Local Governments” in 2007. (U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011, Table 428). The criterion by which the size of such local governments is determined to be small is a population of 50,000. However, because the Census Bureau does not specifically apply that criterion, it cannot be determined with precision how many of such local governmental organizations are small. Nonetheless, the inference seems reasonable that a substantial number of these governmental organizations has a population of less than 50,000. To look at Table 428 in conjunction with a related set of data in Table 429 in the Census’s Statistical Abstract of the U.S., that inference is further supported by the fact that in both Tables, many entities that may well be small are included in the 89,476 local governmental organizations, e.g., county, municipal, township and town, school district and special district entities. Measured by a criterion of a population of 50,000, many specific sub-entities in this category seem more likely than larger county-level governmental organizations to have small populations. (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 80 small. 11. 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.16 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 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.17 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.18 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. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Once an Overlay License is granted via auction for Chambers, we propose not to subject the Licensee to the existing rules concerning the five-year 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 (Continued from previous page) Accordingly, of the 89,746 small governmental organizations identified in the 2007 Census, the Commission estimates that a substantial majority are small. 16 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 17 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&- ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en. 18 See http://reboot.fcc.gov/reform/systems/spectrum-dashboard. For the purposes of this IRFA, consistent with Commission practice for wireless services, the Commission estimates the number of licensees based on the number of unique FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 81 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% of the geographic area of its license authorization within four years of initial license grant and at least 70% 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. 15. 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 dBµV/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 (section 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. 16. In this 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 section 22.953 (deleting certain technical data requirements that, going forward, we believe will no longer be routinely necessary). We also propose to delete obsolete and outdated provisions, 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. E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof for small entities.19 18. 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 build-out 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 19 5 U.S.C. § 603(c). Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 82 significant and unjustifiable adverse economic impact on small entities. 19. 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. F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 20. None. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 83 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI Re: Amendment of Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to the Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area; Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Relocation of Part 24 to Part 2; Interim Restrictions and Procedures for Cellular Service Applications, WT Docket No. 12-40, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (FCC 12-20). Today we take another important step in our work to reform the FCC, reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, and increase regulatory parity. We are proposing to migrate the 800 MHz cellular spectrum from a site-based to a geographic-based licensing system, which will reduce licensing and filing burdens relating to use of the spectrum. The 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone Service is the band that spawned the mobile revolution roughly 30 years ago, and its unique site-by-site licensing model helped bring mobile service to all Americans, even in remote rural areas. But the original licensing model has outlived its original utility. It’s time to transition from the old site-based licensing model to a more flexible geographically-licensed model. The new licensing model for 800 MHz will be the same as our more recent, flexibly licensed bands, such as PCS, AWS, and the 700 MHz band. We’ll implement this with a two-stage transition using auctions of “overlay licenses” to ensure efficiency and convey more flexible rights to license holders. The NPRM also proposes several changes to the Cellular rules to update or eliminate outdated technical provisions and data collection requirements to reduce administrative burdens on licensees. This item proposes to eliminate seven unnecessary data collections, which, if adopted, will bring to 32 the number of unnecessary data collections we have eliminated. The Commission’s actions to end these data collections – and eliminate more than 210 regulations – are consistent with two Executive Orders that called on federal agencies to review rules and regulations and ensure they are cost-effective and don’t place unnecessary burdens on industry. I’m pleased to thank CTIA for its petition, which spurred this rulemaking, as well as NTCA, and RTG – the Rural Telecommunications Group – for their comments and insight. We look forward to comments from all interested parties to ensure the transition is a success. Thank you to the staff of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for their hard work and creative thinking on ways in which we can remove regulatory barriers, make more spectrum available for critical services, and increase spectrum flexibility. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 84 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL Re: Amendment of Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to the Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area; Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Relocation of Part 24 to Part 2; Interim Restrictions and Procedures for Cellular Service Applications, WT Docket No. 12-40, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (FCC 12-20). Today we seek comment on a comprehensive proposal to make the Commission’s cellular service rules consistent with those of virtually all other commercial wireless services. Updating these rules will offer greater flexibility to construct and operate facilities within a larger geographic area and commence operations without prior Commission approval, thereby reducing regulatory requirements. Adopted decades ago, the current site-based cellular licensing rules are now obsolete and create unnecessary burdens for both licensees and Commission staff. Given our aim to modernize and streamline our licensing processes and to create parity among competing mobile providers, I am pleased to support this notice and associated order. The notice is detailed and broad in scope, setting forth an array of ideas. The order suspending certain filings associated with cellular licensing will permit the orderly and effective resolution of the fundamental changes and issues raised today. I thank the Chairman for bringing these matters forward, as well as the talented team in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for your thoughtful, creative work. I look forward to engaging with interested stakeholders to learn more about the pros and cons of this proposal. Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 85 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN Re: Amendment of Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to the Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area; Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Relocation of Part 24 to Part 2; Interim Restrictions and Procedures for Cellular Service Applications, WT Docket No. 12-40, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (FCC 12-20). Last July, President Obama issued an Executive Order directing independent agencies to identify, and repeal or modify rules that are outmoded or excessively burdensome. Based on the record, thus far, I agree that many of the site-based licensing rules of the 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone Service meet the Executive Order’s standard. When the FCC established the initial rules for allocating this cellular service some thirty years ago, it adopted a hybrid licensing approach. Original Service Licensees were given five years to build networks in any part of a geographic location. Any area, which was not built out during that time period, was then relinquished, and the FCC would subsequently re-license those unconstructed areas on a site-by-site basis. This licensing approach helped to drive construction of mobile wireless networks across the nation. But now we find that many of the site-based rules in this cellular service have become outdated. The existing technical rules for this service define a cellular carrier's service area based upon analog signal propagation. As a result of the Commission’s 2002 order, which established the sunset of analog cellular service rules, analog service is generally no longer being offered. Therefore, it no longer makes sense to define a cellular service area based on analog signals. Over the years, the Commission has also learned that there are a number of administrative costs associated with site-based licensing. Under the current rules, a cellular licensee making any system change, that would expand or decrease its service area, must file an application with comprehensive engineering data. Geographic area licenses, especially when used in more metropolitan areas, obviate the need for these numerous filings. Therefore, these licenses allow providers to more rapidly deploy and modify facilities within their licensed areas. Of all the licensed services that providers use to offer consumers commercial mobile wireless service, the 800 MHz Cellular Service is the only one that still incorporates site-based licensing. So, eliminating site-based licensing rules, when they no longer make sense, appropriately promotes more rapid network deployment and furthers regulatory parity. There are a number of important proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, such as: awarding Overlay Licenses through competitive bidding; allowing licensees to use secondary market measures to spur deployment; and the use of bidding credits to encourage small businesses to enter the mobile industry. I strongly encourage the industry and the public to carefully consider all of the proposals in this item. I am particularly interested in hearing how these proposals, or any alternatives, could promote more competitive options for consumers. I commend Rick Kaplan and his staff of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for their hard work on this item.