Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

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
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


WT Docket No. 97-112


CC Docket No. 90-6
REPORT AND ORDER

   Adopted:  December 21, 2001	Released:  January 15, 2002

By the Commission:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
       Paragraph

I. 	INTRODUCTION	1

II. 	BACKGROUND	3

III. 	DISCUSSION	12

A.	Establishment of the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone	13
B.	Licensing in the Western Gulf	21
C.	Service Area Boundary Formula	35
D.	Placement of Transmitters	  37
E.	Pending Applications	39
	1. Pending Phase II Applications	39
	2. Pending De Minimis Extension Applications	41
F.	Other Services.	43

IV.	CONCLUSION	48

V.	PROCEDURAL MATTERS	49

A.	Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis	49
B.	Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis	50

VI.	ORDERING CLAUSES	51

APPENDIX A:		Map of Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone Coordinates

APPENDIX B:		Phase II and De Minimis Extension Applications

APPENDIX C:		Final Rules

APPENDIX D:		Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Report and Order, we resolve certain issues raised in the Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding,  in which we proposed changes to our cellular service rules for 
the Gulf of Mexico Service Area (“GMSA”).  Our decision also responds to the remand by the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Petroleum Communications v. FCC,  
which was the result of an appeal of prior rules for licensing in the Gulf adopted in the Commission’s 
Unserved Area Third Report and Order.   We adopt a bifurcated approach to cellular licensing in the 
Gulf, based on the differences between the deployment of cellular service in the Eastern Gulf (the Florida 
Gulf coast) and the Western Gulf (the Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama Gulf Coast).  In the 
Eastern Gulf, where there are no offshore oil and gas drilling platforms on which to site cellular facilities, 
we adopt our proposal to establish a Coastal Zone in which our cellular unserved area licensing rules will 
apply.  In the Western Gulf, we find that the extensive deployment of both Gulf-based and land-based 
facilities that has occurred in the past few years makes adoption of our Second Further Notice proposal 
impractical.  Instead, we conclude that cellular service in the Western Gulf should continue to be 
governed by current rules, with certain modifications to facilitate negotiated solutions to ongoing 
coverage conflicts between Gulf-based and land-based carriers.  Accordingly, we establish the Gulf of 
Mexico Exclusive Zone, encompassing the Western Gulf and areas of the Eastern Gulf outside of the 
Coastal Zone, in which the Gulf carriers will be exclusively licensed to operate.

2. The Second Further Notice also requested comment regarding the possibility of establishing 
licensing areas in the Gulf for Commercial Mobile Radio Services (“CMRS”) other than cellular.   Given 
the limited comment we have received on these issues, we decline to adopt new licensing and service 
rules for the provision of non-cellular services in the Gulf at this time.  Instead, we conclude that the issue 
of establishing new Gulf licensing areas should be addressed on a service-by-service basis, as we have 
done in several services since the Second Further Notice.  In addition, we clarify the rights of land-based 
licensees in those services in which we have not provided for licensing of carriers in the Gulf.  

II. BACKGROUND

3. Initial Licensing of Cellular Service in the Gulf of Mexico. The Commission first authorized the 
provision of cellular service in the Gulf of Mexico in 1983 and licensed two carriers to serve the region in 
1985.   The original rules allowed the Gulf carriers to operate throughout the GMSA, which extends to 
the shoreline and, therefore, includes coastal water areas.  However, the Gulf carriers were limited to 
placing their transmitter sites on offshore platforms (predominantly oil and gas drilling platforms) and 
were prohibited from using land-based transmitters to serve the GMSA.  In addition, in order to prevent 
interference to adjacent land-based cellular systems, the Gulf carriers were required to limit transmitter 
power from offshore sites to the extent necessary to avoid extending their service area contours over 
land.  
 
4. The presence of the Gulf licensees placed similar limitations on land-based cellular operations in 
adjacent coastal areas.  Land-based carriers were prohibited by our rules from extending their service area 
contours into the GMSA, i.e., beyond the mean high-tide line that defined the service area border, except 
for de minimis extensions.   As a result, land-based carriers seeking to cover shore areas, e.g., to provide 
comprehensive service along coastal roads and in coastal communities, were unable to site transmitters 
close to the shoreline without incurring substantial engineering costs to avoid their signals being 
transmitted over water.  

5. From the outset, these rules have caused conflict between the Gulf carriers and adjacent land 
carriers regarding the provision of service in the Gulf coastal region.  Because offshore drilling has not 
occurred in the Eastern Gulf, these conflicts have occurred almost exclusively in the Western Gulf,  
particularly in areas where offshore and onshore sites were in close proximity.  In some instances, the 
requirement to avoid encroachment into adjacent service areas has led to gaps in coverage, both on land 
and over water, because neither Gulf-based nor land-based carriers could extend coverage into these areas 
without capture of each other’s subscriber traffic. In other instances, disputes have arisen over whether 
particular Gulf or land carriers were improperly extending coverage and capturing subscribers in the 
adjacent land or Gulf service area.   

6. Unserved Area Rules.  In 1993, the Commission adopted the Unserved Area Second Report and 
Order, which established unserved area licensing rules for land-based cellular service.  Under these rules, 
the Cellular Geographic Service Area (“CGSA”) of each cellular system was redefined as the composite 
contour created by the actual service areas of all cells in the system.   The CGSA is the area in which 
carriers are entitled to protection from interference and from capture of subscriber traffic by adjacent 
carriers.   In addition, areas not within any carrier’s CGSA were subject to reclamation by the 
Commission and licensing as unserved areas.  In the Unserved Area Third Report and Order, the 
Commission extended these rules to cellular service in the Gulf.  As a result, the Gulf carriers’ service 
areas no longer comprised the entire GMSA, but were now limited to areas in the Gulf that received 
actual coverage from an offshore platform-based cell site.  This caused portions of the Gulf that were 
outside the coverage area of any offshore cell site to be redefined as “unserved” areas, which could not be 
served by the Gulf carriers without further application and licensing.    

7. PetroCom Remand.  In the PetroCom decision, the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded certain 
aspects of the unserved area rules as they applied to the Gulf.  The Court found that the Commission had 
failed adequately to consider the distinctive nature of Gulf-based service, which relied on movable 
drilling platforms for placement of cell sites, in comparison to land-based service, which used stationary 
sites.  The Court stated that, while it did not foreclose the possibility of a convincing rationale for 
applying a uniform standard to both Gulf and land-based licensees, the Commission had failed adequately 
to justify the decision in the Unserved Area proceeding to treat Gulf licensees in the same manner as land-
based cellular licensees in light of their reliance on transitory sites.   The Court remanded the issue and 
instructed the Commission to vacate the rule that defined the Gulf carriers’ CGSAs based on their areas of 
actual service.  The effect of the remand was the restoration of the service area of the Gulf carriers as the 
entire GMSA, regardless of the location of their platform-based cell sites.   

8. Second Further Notice Proposal.  Following the PetroCom decision, the Commission issued the 
Second Further Notice, in which it initiated a comprehensive reexamination of the cellular service rules 
for the Gulf.   Specifically, the Commission proposed dividing the GMSA into a Coastal Zone and an 
Exclusive Zone.  Under this proposal, the Coastal Zone would consist of the portion of the GMSA 
extending from the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico to the twelve-mile offshore limit,  while the 
Exclusive Zone would extend from the twelve-mile limit to the southern boundary of the GMSA.  In the 
Exclusive Zone, the two existing Gulf carriers would be able to move their offshore transmitters freely 
and to expand or modify their systems without being required to file additional applications, obtain prior 
Commission approval, or face competing applications for the right to serve the territory.   In the Coastal 
Zone, we proposed to apply our Phase II unserved area licensing rules, as adopted in the Competitive 
Bidding Ninth Report and Order.   Thus, within the Coastal Zone, any qualified applicant (including both 
Gulf- and land-based carriers) would be permitted to apply to serve unserved areas, and all mutually 
exclusive applications would be subject to competitive bidding procedures. 

9. Comments and Carriers’ Proposals.  In response to the Second Further Notice, we received a 
number of comments and alternative proposals from land-based and Gulf-based carriers, many of which 
have been supplemented recently with ex parte presentations.  While commenting land carriers generally 
support our proposal to bifurcate the GMSA into a Coastal Zone and Exclusive Zone,  most oppose our 
proposal to use cellular unserved area licensing rules to award licenses in the Coastal Zone.   Instead, 
many of the land-based carriers support a proposal by ALLTEL to treat the Coastal Zone as a “buffer 
zone” extending twelve miles out to sea from the Gulf coastline.  Within this buffer zone, ALLTEL 
proposes that Gulf and land carriers could freely extend their SABs and overlap contours, subject to 
mandatory frequency coordination, but without protection from subscriber capture.   In the GMSA 
outside the buffer zone, Gulf carriers would be fully protected from interference.   

10. A second alternative proposal has been advanced by PetroCom, the A-side Gulf licensee, and US 
Cellular, an adjacent land-based licensee in certain markets.  PetroCom and US Cellular propose a 
bifurcated approach in the Eastern and Western Gulf.  In the Eastern Gulf, they would redraw the GMSA 
boundary ten miles seaward from the shoreline, thus allowing land-based carriers in Florida to expand 
their coverage over water to that extent.  In the Western Gulf, this proposal would retain the existing 
GMSA boundary along the coastline, and for a period of five years would prohibit either side from 
expanding over that boundary without the other carrier’s consent.  A carrier, however, would be allowed 
to use a higher effective radiated power than that resulting from the Commission’s SAB formula, based 
on measurement data demonstrating equal signal strengths at the coastline.  The resulting SAB 
extensions, however, would not be included as part of the other carrier’s CGSA.  After five years, their 
proposal would allow a land carrier to serve portions of the Gulf from land without consent from the Gulf 
carrier, so long as the latter was not serving that area, but the Gulf carrier would have the right to 
“reclaim” the area if a new or relocated drilling platform enabled it to provide service.  PetroCom and US 
Cellular also propose that pending, non-mutually exclusive Phase II applications to serve coastal waters 
be granted.   Originally, these carriers proposed that either a land-based or Gulf-based carrier be 
permitted to adjust its signal strength to equalize that of the adjacent carrier at the coastline boundary 
without the adjacent carrier’s consent; recently, however, PetroCom informed the Commission that, in 
light of the recent agreement between the B-side land-based and Gulf-based carriers, the proposal had 
been revised to eliminate this provision. 

11. Coastel, the B-side Gulf carrier, argues that the current rules are sufficient to meet the 
Commission’s objectives, and therefore proposes that we terminate this rulemaking without adopting new 
rules.   According to Coastel, the Gulf carriers have substantially expanded their coverage of the Gulf in 
recent years, eliminating gaps in coverage and providing more reliable service to coastal waters in the 
Gulf.   Coastel contends that this change in circumstances obviates the need for further rulemaking, and 
further argues that the Commission’s proposals in the Second Further Notice would not reduce conflict 
because many issues would still remain to be resolved between carriers.  

III. DISCUSSION

12. We find that the record in this proceeding demonstrates that different approaches toward the 
Eastern and Western Gulf are warranted.  The development of cellular service has followed different 
paths in these two areas, which justifies treating them differently so as to spur the development of reliable 
service where needed, minimize the disturbance to current operations and contractual arrangements, and 
address the issues raised in the PetroCom remand. 

A. Establishment of the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone 
13. As noted above, the circumstances with respect to the Gulf carriers’ current service to and ability 
to serve the coastal areas vary greatly between the Eastern and Western Gulf.  Unlike the Western Gulf, 
where the Gulf carriers have substantial offshore operations, the Eastern Gulf has no offshore oil or gas 
drilling platforms, and consequently, the Gulf carriers have no offshore base stations from which to 
provide service in the coastal waters off Florida.  The record also indicates no likelihood of such 
platforms being constructed in the Eastern Gulf any time in the near future.   We agree with PetroCom 
and US Cellular that, in light of these circumstances, there is a basis to differentiate between our approach 
to the Eastern Gulf and the Western Gulf.  

14. We conclude that, in the Eastern Gulf, the best way to ensure that seamless cellular service is 
provided – both on land and in coastal waters -- is to adopt our proposal to create a Coastal Zone along 
the eastern portion of the GMSA.  The current positioning of the eastern GMSA boundary directly along 
the Florida coastline does not accomplish this because it requires land carriers to engineer their systems to 
limit signal strength along the coast so as to avoid extending their coverage over water.  Moreover, 
section 22.911(d)(2)(i) requires a land-based carrier in Florida to obtain the consent of the Gulf carrier to 
extend coverage over water, even though the Gulf carriers have no cellular facilities to serve Florida 
coastal waters.  

15. Establishing a Coastal Zone in the Eastern Gulf will improve cellular service to coastal areas by 
providing an opportunity for land-based carriers to extend their service area contours into territorial 
coastal waters, which will in turn enable them to add cell sites close to shore and to increase signal 
strength, thereby improving the reliability of service, from existing sites.  This will not only lead to 
improved coverage of coastal communities, beach resorts, and coastal roads, but will also facilitate 
service to coastal boat traffic operating close to shore that can be served from land-based transmitters. 

16. The remainder of the Eastern Gulf that is not included in the Coastal Zone, along with the entire 
Western Gulf,  will be designated as the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone.  In this area, as proposed in the 
Second Further Notice, the Gulf carriers will have the unrestricted and exclusive right to operate cellular 
facilities.  The Gulf carriers will also have the flexibility to add, remove, modify, or relocate sites in the 
Exclusive Zone without notice to or approval by the Commission.

17. In the Second Further Notice, we proposed that the Coastal Zone would be coextensive with the 
territorial waters of the United States, a maritime zone that extends approximately twelve nautical miles 
from the U.S. coastline.   We conclude that the territorial water limit will serve as an appropriate 
boundary between the Coastal Zone and the Exclusive Zone in the Eastern Gulf.  This approach is also 
consistent with the approach we have taken more recently in established services where we have provided 
for licensing in the Gulf.  In the context of WCS, we drew the boundary between land-based operations 
and Gulf-based operations at the territorial water limit.   Therefore, we define the Eastern Gulf Coastal 
Zone as the portion of the Gulf that is bounded by a line extending approximately twelve nautical miles 
due south from the coastline boundary of the States of Florida and Alabama, and continuing along the 
west coast of Florida at a distance of approximately twelve nautical miles from the shoreline.  

18. We believe that the most advisable course for licensing the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone will be to 
define the region as unserved area.  This will enable all entities to apply to serve areas of the Coastal Zone 
that are not currently served.   Accordingly, we will begin accepting Phase II unserved area applications 
to serve portions of the Coastal Zone sixty days after the effective date of the rules.  Further, in the event 
of mutually exclusive applications, use of our unserved area competitive bidding rules will ensure that the 
authorization to serve a given area is awarded to the carrier that values it most and will help maximize the 
use of the spectrum.  Carriers who apply to serve portions of the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone will be 
required, consistent with our rules for terrestrial unserved areas, to construct facilities in these areas 
within one year from the date of receiving approval to serve this area. 

19. We recognize that as a result of our decision to apply unserved area licensing rules to the Eastern 
Gulf Coastal Zone, the Gulf carriers will no longer have the exclusive right to serve Florida coastal waters 
as part of the GMSA.  We conclude, however, that the above-described public interest benefits of this 
course outweigh the costs.  Because the Gulf carriers have no operations in the Eastern Gulf, our decision 
will not result in any reduction in cellular service or stranded investment in cellular facilities by the Gulf 
carriers.  Moreover, given the lack of existing or planned installation of offshore platforms in the Eastern 
Gulf Coastal Zone, there is no likelihood that the Gulf carriers would be in a position to provide service 
there in the foreseeable future.  Nonetheless, our decision does not preclude the Gulf carriers from 
seeking to provide service in the Coastal Zone in conformity with the unserved area licensing rules we are 
adopting for this region, either from land-based sites or from offshore platforms, at any point in the future 
should they become available. 

20. Finally, we note that some land-based carriers in Florida have previously-granted de minimis 
extensions extending into the GMSA.   Our creation of the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone is not intended to 
limit the scope of existing cellular operations, and we therefore grandfather all existing de minimis 
extensions of land carriers in the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone.  However, if a land carrier wishes to 
incorporate the area within an existing de minimis extension into its CGSA, it must file an unserved area 
application.  In addition, carriers who are currently operating on the Florida coast under Special 
Temporary Authorization  must file an unserved area application if they wish to operate on a permanent 
basis. 

B. Licensing in the Western Gulf  

21.  As noted above, the nature and extent of cellular service in the Western Gulf differs significantly 
from that in the Eastern Gulf.  While the Gulf carriers do not have offshore facilities in the Eastern Gulf, 
they have built an extensive offshore cellular network on oil and gas drilling platforms in the Western 
Gulf.  In substantial portions of the Western Gulf, particularly off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
Alabama, many of these platforms are located only a few miles from shore, enabling the Gulf carriers to 
extend coverage to the coastline.   

22. The close proximity of these water-based sites to the coastline has given rise to technical and 
operational conflicts between the Gulf carriers seeking to provide service in coastal waters and the 
adjacent land-based carriers seeking to provide service to coastal communities, resorts, beaches, and 
coastal roads.  In areas where land and water-based sites are close to one another, Gulf and land carriers 
must reduce their respective signal strength near the coastline in order to avoid incursions into their 
counterparts’ markets.  Some land-based carriers contend that the requirement to limit signal strength has 
led to gaps in their coverage along the coast, and that the Gulf carriers refuse to consent to SAB 
extensions into the Gulf that are needed to allow the land-based carriers to provide seamless service on 
land.   The Gulf carriers dispute this characterization, and contend that it is the land-based carriers who 
are preventing them from providing ubiquitous service in the Gulf.   

23. In addition, both Gulf and land carriers accuse one another of improperly extending coverage 
across the coastline into their counterparts’ markets and consequently capturing subscriber traffic that 
should be served by the home carrier.    Some land-based carriers contend that their customers have 
complained about placing calls on land that were captured by the Gulf carrier’s system  rather than the 
land-based system, requiring the customer to pay extremely high roaming charges to the Gulf carrier.   
The Gulf carriers argue that the land carriers have failed to document these alleged incidents of capture, 
that such capture is extremely uncommon, and that it is far more common in the Gulf for offshore cellular 
calls to be captured by land-based systems.  

24. In the Second Further Notice, we proposed to bifurcate the Western Gulf into a Coastal and 
Exclusive Zone in the same manner that we proposed (and are adopting today) for the Eastern Gulf.  We 
stated that we would grandfather all existing Gulf facilities, but that any unserved area in the Coastal 
Zone (i.e., area not currently served by the Gulf carrier from an existing offshore drilling platform) would 
be available for licensing under our cellular unserved area licensing rules.   As noted above, commenters 
generally oppose this proposal, though from different perspectives.   Most land carriers, led by ALLTEL, 
propose that the Coastal Zone should not be subject to unserved area licensing, but should instead be open 
to both Gulf and land-based carriers on a shared, coordinated basis.   PetroCom, with the concurrence of 
US Cellular, opposes the creation of a Coastal Zone in the Western Gulf, proposing instead that land-
based carriers be allowed to expand their SAB contours into unserved portions of the Gulf but also 
required to pull back if a Gulf carrier sought to serve the area.  Coastel opposes the Second Further Notice 
proposal and advocates continuing to apply the current rules without modification.

25. In evaluating our proposal and the alternatives presented by commenters, we consider it important 
to note that circumstances in the Western Gulf appear to have changed significantly since the adoption of 
the Second Further Notice.  First, in the Second Further Notice, the Commission expressed concern 
regarding gaps in coverage of the Western Gulf, and sought to advance a solution that would ensure 
ubiquitous coverage of coastal waters (whether from land or water-based transmitters) in order to make 
service available not only to personnel on drilling platforms but also to coastal boat traffic.   The record 
in this proceeding indicates that, in the past few years, the Gulf carriers have substantially expanded their 
networks and improved their coverage of the Western Gulf.   As a result, there appear to be fewer gaps in 
coverage of coastal waters than there were previously. 

26. Second, while there are still significant disputes between Gulf and land-based carriers generally, 
some Gulf and land carriers have successfully negotiated agreements since the Second Further Notice that 
provide a mutually agreed-upon framework for cooperative operation along portions of the Western Gulf 
coast.  In particular, PetroCom, the A-side Gulf carrier, has entered into a series of extension and 
collocation agreements with US Cellular and several other A-side land-based carriers.    These 
agreements facilitate seamless coverage of coastal areas (over both land and water) and apply negotiated 
solutions to issues such as coverage, capture, and roaming rates.   A similar accord has been negotiated 
by Coastel, the B-side Gulf carrier, and ALLTEL, the principal B-side land carrier, by which they have 
reached agreement with respect to their operations along the Alabama coastline, specifically in Mobile 
Bay. 

27. In light of these developments, we believe that the best way to achieve reliable, ubiquitous 
service in the Western Gulf is to encourage further reliance on negotiation and market-based solutions to 
the fullest extent possible.  The fact that some Gulf- and land-based carriers have reached negotiated 
agreements suggests that carrier-driven solutions to these issues are possible without substantial changes 
to existing rules.  Moreover, in other instances where negotiations have not been successful, a partial 
cause may be uncertainty and speculation regarding possible rule changes that could result from this 
proceeding.  Thus, adopting rules that substantially change the relationship between land and Gulf carriers 
in the Western Gulf could be counter-productive by further delaying negotiated solutions and even 
leading parties to seek to unwind existing agreements. 

28. Therefore, upon review of the record, we conclude that we should not adopt our Second Further 
Notice proposal to create a Coastal Zone subject to unserved area licensing rules in the Western Gulf.  
First, because of the buildout that has occurred in the Western Gulf in recent years, there is relatively little 
unserved area in what would comprise the Coastal Zone.  Second, to the extent that applying unserved 
area licensing rules would impose a “use or lose” regime on the Gulf carriers (i.e., a Gulf carrier 
providing service from an offshore platform could permanently lose the right to serve that portion of the 
Gulf if the platform were moved out of the area, even if the relocation was not permanent), we are 
concerned that such a fundamental change in the rules could delay resolution of coverage conflicts and 
discourage negotiation of extension and collocation agreements between land and Gulf carriers.  

29. We similarly decline to adopt the ALLTEL proposal that the Coastal Zone be available for use by 
both Gulf and land-based carriers on a shared, coordinated basis.  Although ALLTEL’s proposal is 
designed to provide a basis for negotiated agreements, implementing it as a formal rule would, in effect, 
turn the Coastal Zone into a “no-man’s land” where the prohibition against capture of a neighboring 
carrier’s subscriber traffic would not apply.  Moreover, by eliminating capture protection in a portion of 
the GMSA while retaining it in the CGSAs of the adjacent land carriers, the effect of the ALLTEL 
proposal would be to shift the protections afforded by existing rules in favor of the land carriers and 
against the Gulf carriers.  While we have no objection to voluntary agreements along the lines of 
ALLTEL’s proposal, we see no compelling public interest reason to codify it in our rules, and are 
concerned that doing so could reduce the incentive for land carriers to negotiate with Gulf carriers 
regarding traffic capture in the Coastal Zone.   In addition, because the ALLTEL proposal does not 
provide a mechanism for settling frequency coordination disputes, there is a substantial likelihood that the 
Commission would be burdened with resolving such matters in instances where frequency coordination 
failed. 

30. Rather than adopt our Second Further Notice proposal or the ALLTEL proposal in the Western 
Gulf, we conclude that the wisest course is to designate a Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone by generally 
maintaining the currently applicable rules and continuing to encourage carriers to resolve their differences 
through negotiated agreements. Specifically, we identify the GMSA area west of the Eastern Gulf Coastal 
Zone as part of the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone, which will reach landward up to the land-water 
boundary in the western portion of the Gulf.  In reaching this conclusion, we do not subscribe to Coastel’s 
position that no revisions to the rules are required.  However, we believe that with relatively minor 
modifications, described below, the current rules should provide sufficient incentives for both Gulf and 
land carriers to negotiate agreements that lead to seamless cellular coverage in coastal areas at 
competitive rates.

31. Accordingly, in the Western Gulf, we will maintain the GMSA border at the coastline as 
currently defined in our rules, and will allow the Gulf carriers to provide service throughout the Gulf of 
Mexico Exclusive Zone regardless of the location of their cell sites at any particular time.  Thus, Gulf 
carriers will not be subject to a “use or lose” regime based on the movement of offshore drilling 
platforms.  We note that this approach addresses the concern expressed by the court in PetroCom that our 
rules for the Gulf carriers take into account the transitory nature of water-based transmission sites.  Our 
decision today gives the Gulf carriers full flexibility to build, relocate, modify and remove offshore 
facilities throughout the Western Gulf without seeking prior FCC approval or facing competing 
applications.    

32. In the Second Further Notice, we noted that, although under our proposal only the Gulf carriers 
would have exclusive rights within the Exclusive Zone, we tentatively concluded that de minimis 
extensions into unserved areas in the GMSA Exclusive Zone should be permitted.   Upon further 
consideration of our proposal, however, we do not believe it is necessary to permit de minimis extensions 
into the Exclusive Zone in light of the ability of the land-based and Gulf carriers to enter into agreements 
regarding their operations.  In instances where it is necessary for a carrier to extend into an adjacent 
carrier’s licensed area, the record reflects that contract extensions (i.e. where the Gulf and land licensees 
mutually agree to the extension) are sufficient to ensure reliable coverage.

33. We recognize that the rules we are adopting for the Western Gulf cannot resolve all of the 
technical and operational conflicts (e.g., interference, subscriber capture) that have arisen in areas where 
Gulf carriers and land carriers operate in close proximity to one another.  Ultimately, only negotiation and 
cooperative arrangements between land and Gulf-based carriers can resolve these conflicts.  Nonetheless, 
because our decision here provides finality regarding our licensing and operational rules, we expect that it 
will facilitate and speed the progress of such negotiations.  We emphasize that under our decision today, 
parties remain free to negotiate consensual agreements that provide for extensions, coordination of 
frequencies, collocation, facilities sharing, or other solutions, so long as such agreements do not affect the 
rights of third parties.    Thus, nothing in our decision today is intended to modify or alter the effect of 
the existing agreements that have been negotiated by PetroCom or Coastel with adjacent land-based 
carriers.  We also encourage Gulf and land-based carriers who have not reached negotiated agreements to 
enter into negotiations that could result in such agreements. 

34. In seeking to facilitate negotiated agreements, it is our goal to create incentives for carriers to 
reach agreements that are not only mutually beneficial, but that also benefit existing and potential cellular 
subscribers.  For example, while we recognize that the operating costs of Gulf carriers are typically higher 
than those of land-based carriers, we seek to ensure that they cannot recover those costs by charging 
uncompetitive rates or roaming charges to their customers, including the numerous land-based subscribers 
who may roam onto a Gulf carrier’s network when close to the coastline (e.g., recreational boaters).   We 
believe that the rules we adopt today will help to foster a competitive marketplace in the Gulf that will 
protect consumers from such charges and practices.  We note, for example, that some of the recently 
negotiated agreements between Gulf and land-based carriers provide for “in-shore” roaming rates that are 
comparable to roaming rates on land as opposed to the higher rates that PetroCom charges roamers 
operating significantly further out to sea.  This creates a competitive incentive for similar terms to be 
negotiated in future agreements also.  Moreover, the deployment of non-cellular services such as PCS 
along the Gulf coast will apply pressure on both cellular providers in the Gulf, and their land-based 
counterparts, to offer competitive services and rates.   

C. Service Area Boundary Formula
35. In the Unserved Area Second Report and Order, the Commission applied the standard land-based 
SAB formula to operations by land carriers along the Gulf coast (“land formula”), but adopted a separate 
mathematical formula to define the SABs of facilities operated by the Gulf carriers from offshore sites 
(“water formula”) in the Unserved Area Third Report and Order.  The use of different formulas 
recognized that cellular signals transmitted over water typically have stronger propagation characteristics 
(i.e., can be received at greater distances from the transmitter) than comparable signals transmitted over 
land, which are attenuated by variations in terrain, buildings, trees, and other obstacles.  The two SAB 
formulas also incorporated different assumptions regarding receivers:  the land formula determined the 
distance to the service area boundary that results in reliable service to a conventional mobile unit, while 
the water formula established the distance to the service area boundary that results in reliable service to a 
marine mobile unit with a mast-mounted antenna.   In the Second Further Notice, the Commission 
sought comment on whether to retain the two-formula approach or to adopt an alternative “hybrid” 
approach that would account for signals in the Gulf coastal region that are transmitted over both land and 
water.   
 
36. We will continue to use the two existing SAB formulas for land and water-based sites, 
respectively.  While no mathematical formula can precisely duplicate actual signal propagation in all 
circumstances, we conclude that the two-formula approach adequately accounts for the different 
characteristics of signal propagation over land and water.  In addition, the record reflects little support for 
a hybrid formula, and we find that it would be difficult to establish such a formula that would account for 
the variation in propagation of a single signal over both land and water.  Finally, retaining the existing 
SAB formulas is consistent with our overall decision to maintain the existing relationship between land 
and Gulf carriers in the Western Gulf as the basis for negotiated solution of their operational conflicts.  
The Gulf carriers have been using the water formula to depict SAB contours for their facilities operating 
in the Gulf since the formula was adopted, while the land carriers have used the land-based formula for 
their facilities.  Consequently, changing the SAB definitions at this point could lead to one side or the 
other unilaterally increasing their transmitter power under the revised definitions, which could upset 
existing agreements and create new conflicts.  Of course, this does not preclude parties from entering into 
voluntary agreements that would allow for consensual transmitter power adjustments based on alternative 
contour definitions.

D. Placement of Transmitters

37. When we initially licensed carriers to provide cellular service in the Gulf, we did not prohibit 
them from placing sites on land, but required Gulf carriers to avoid causing significant overlap of their 
reliable service area contours with land-based licensees.    Subsequently, we determined that allowing 
Gulf carriers to place transmitters on land would cause significant incursions over land and hamper the 
ability of land-based MSA and RSA licensees to carry out the initial build out of their systems.  Thus we 
concluded that Gulf carriers should not be permitted to place transmitters on land without the consent of 
the affected land-based carrier. 

38. In the Second Further Notice, we observed that the land-based licensees along the Gulf coast 
have built out their cellular systems to encompass nearly the entire coastal land area of the Gulf region, 
and tentatively concluded that it was no longer necessary to prohibit Gulf carriers from siting on land, so 
long as no overlap with any land-based carrier’s CGSA occurred.  We therefore proposed to abandon our 
blanket prohibition against Gulf carriers placing their transmitters on land, and proposed to rely solely on 
our CGSA and SAB extension rules to determine whether or not the placement of a particular transmitter 
was permissible.   In light of the course we now take, we believe that it is appropriate to adopt this part 
of the proposal from the Second Further Notice and permit Gulf carriers to operate land-based sites, 
subject to SAB extension rules as discussed above.  We believe that this additional flexibility will help 
facilitate contractual resolutions of the issues facing adjacent carriers along the Gulf of Mexico.

E. Pending Applications

	1.	Pending Phase II Applications

39. In December 1992, following our adoption of cellular unserved area licensing rules applicable to 
the Gulf, we accepted Phase II applications for unserved area licenses in the GMSA.   Many of these 
applications were petitioned against by the Gulf carriers.  In addition, PetroCom filed a Phase II 
application that remains pending.  However, following the PetroCom remand of the unserved area rules 
as they applied to the GMSA, we suspended processing of these applications pending reconsideration of 
our policies in the Gulf region.   In the Second Further Notice, we proposed that areas of the Coastal 
Zone that do not receive cellular service be treated as unserved areas and that Phase II competitive 
bidding procedures should be implemented for those areas.   We further proposed that all unserved area 
applications previously filed to serve Coastal Zone areas would be dismissed without prejudice, and that 
applicants would be allowed to resubmit their applications sixty days after the effective date of this 
rulemaking.   

40. In light of our actions today, we will dismiss all pending Phase II applications and associated 
petitions to deny.  In both the Western Gulf, where we have decided not to apply unserved area licensing 
procedures, and the Eastern Gulf, where we are instituting unserved area licensing in the Coastal Zone, 
we will allow carriers to refile to the extent allowed under the new rules adopted in this Report and 
Order.  In light of the passage of several years since the applications were filed, we conclude that 
dismissing applications filed under superseded rules and allowing carriers currently serving or desiring to 
serve the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone to submit new applications is the fairest and most efficient manner to 
license cellular service in that region.

	2.	Pending De Minimis Extension Applications

41. Following the PetroCom remand, we also suspended processing of applications for de minimis 
extensions into the Gulf.  In the Second Further Notice, we proposed to dismiss all such pending 
applications because the PetroCom court directed us to vacate former section 22.903(a) to the extent that 
it applied to the Gulf carriers, and because virtually all applications for contour extensions were subject to 
petitions to deny and applications for review.  We also noted that pending applicants would not be 
prejudiced by a dismissal of extension applications, because such applicants would have the opportunity 
to resubmit applications under our revised licensing rules for unserved areas in the Gulf.   

42. Based on the action we take today, we will dismiss all pending extension applications and allow 
carriers to refile to the extent permissible under the rules we adopt in this Report and Order.  We 
conclude that dismissal is the more equitable course in light of the passage of time since the applications 
were filed and the fact that the rules under which they were filed have undergone some modification.

F.  Other Services 

43. In the Second Further Notice, the Commission requested comment regarding possible operations 
in the Gulf by CMRS licensees in services other than cellular.   Specifically, we asked whether we 
should establish a Gulf licensing area, analogous to the cellular GMSA, for use in other CMRS services 
and, if such a licensing area were established, where the boundary should lie between it and the adjacent 
licensing areas of land-based CMRS providers.   We received only limited comment on the issue of 
licensing such services in the Gulf.  Stratos Offshore Services Company (“Stratos’), which operates a 
microwave network that supports communications in the Gulf, generally supports creating a license area 
for the non-cellular services to protect licensees operating in the Gulf.   Stratos, however, does not 
support licensing PCS in the Gulf because of the high cost of relocating microwave networks operating at 
2 GHz.  On the other hand, DW Communications, a 900 MHz operator with at least one license along the 
Gulf coast, argues that creating Gulf area licenses in other services would create more problems than 
would be solved.   PCS licensees Sprint PCS and Verizon Wireless each argue that the Commission’s 
PCS service area rules define boundaries based on county lines, which, under state law, extend into the 
Gulf’s offshore areas, and therefore, the Commission should not create a separate license area for PCS in 
the Gulf.  

44. Since the issuance of the Second Further Notice, the Commission has established Gulf licensing 
areas in several other services, including Wireless Communications Service (“WCS”),  Multiple Address 
Systems (MAS),  746-747/776-777 and 762-764/792-794 MHz bands (“700 MHz Guardband”),  24.25-
24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz bands (“24 GHz”),  and the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands 
(“700 MHz”).   In the case of WCS, the Commission incorporated United States territorial waters in the 
Gulf, i.e., waters from the shoreline to a line 12 nautical miles offshore, into the adjacent land-based 
licensing areas.  Thus, the WCS licensing area, unlike the original cellular GMSA, extends seaward from 
the 12-mile limit, and includes coastal waters.  For 700 MHz, the Commission established Economic 
Area Groupings (EAGs) whereby the Gulf of Mexico is divided in two, with the eastern portion being 
included in the license for Southeast EAG, and the western portion being included in the license for the 
Central/Mountain EAG. 

45. With respect to non-cellular CMRS services, we conclude that we should not create a Gulf 
licensing area in this proceeding for all such services, but instead should take up the issue of establishing 
a Gulf licensing area on a service-by-service basis, as we did for WCS, MAS, 24 GHz, 700 MHz 
Guardband, and 700 MHz.  The dearth of support in this proceeding advocating creation of Gulf licensing 
areas suggests that there is limited interest among carriers in many non-cellular CMRS services in 
providing service to offshore drilling facilities analogous to that provided by the Gulf cellular carriers.  
Furthermore, to the extent that carriers in a particular service may wish to establish a Gulf licensing area 
for that service, we can address such issues separately, taking into account the specific characteristics of 
that service. 

46. On the other hand, land-based carriers in services that have no service provider licensed in the 
Gulf have expressed significant interest in our clarifying whether they can extend their coverage offshore 
from land-based sites. We find that in those services where there is no licensed carrier in the Gulf, it is in 
the public interest to allow land-based CMRS carriers to extend their coverage offshore, both to increase 
coverage and service quality for land-based customers along the coastline and to offer service to coastal 
boating traffic.  In general, the geographic service area definitions used for non-cellular CMRS services 
are based on county boundaries, which extend over water pursuant to state law.   We therefore clarify 
that the licensing areas of land-based licensees in such services extend to the limit of county boundaries 
that extend over water.  In addition, licensees may provide service extending further into the Gulf on a 
secondary basis so long as they comply with the technical limitations applicable to the radio service and 
do not cause co-channel or adjacent channel interference to others.

47. Finally, PetroCom has filed a petition for rulemaking with respect to establishment of special 
interference criteria for Gulf-based facilities.   Although we have never adopted specific rules for 
licensing of water-based SMR facilities, the Commission has issued some site-specific SMR licenses to 
PetroCom for sites in the Gulf.   Under the existing SMR rules, these sites are entitled to interference 
protection on the same basis as site-specific licenses on land.  In its petition, PetroCom sought to change 
the interference protection rules for site-based SMR facilities in the Gulf, arguing that the land-based 
rules did not adequately protect its water-based facilities.  We incorporated PetroCom's petition into the 
Second Further Notice and sought comment on it.   However, we received only limited comment on 
issues relating to Gulf-based SMR facilities.   Moreover, since the Second Further Notice, we have 
issued land-based EA licenses in the 800 MHz SMR service, and have received no indication that the 
operations of these licensees have caused interference to Gulf-based SMR facilities. We conclude that in 
light of these circumstances, the record before us does not support amending the existing SMR rules as 
they apply to service in the Gulf, and we therefore deny PetroCom’s petition.   However, PetroCom or 
any other party is free to file an updated petition for rulemaking if it believes that current or potential 
circumstances warrant revision of the SMR rules to protect the operation of Gulf-based facilities.

IV.  CONCLUSION

48.  We conclude this reevaluation of our Gulf cellular rules by finding that the carriers themselves 
are best able to resolve most of the issues standing in the way the provision of reliable, ubiquitous cellular 
coverage to both land-based and Gulf-based subscribers in the Gulf region.  The imposition of a new 
regulatory structure would cause additional and unnecessary delay in meeting this goal.  In addition, the 
record reflects that a number of carriers have been able to resolve their differences under the current rules.  
We believe the few changes we now make help to strike a fair balance between the interests of the 
carriers, the interest of the public, and the need for flexibility to deal with these issues.

V.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A.  Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis.

49. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this Report and Order, as required by Section 604, 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. § 604, is set forth in Appendix D.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.

50.  The actions taken in this Report and Order have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13, and found to impose no new or modified reporting and 
record-keeping requirements or burdens on the public.

VI.  ORDERING CLAUSES

51. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i), 7, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 
and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 
303(r), and 332, the rule changes specified in Appendix C are adopted.

52. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), the applications listed in Appendix B are dismissed.

53. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will begin accepting 
Phase II unserved area applications for the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Zone sixty days after the effective date 
of the rules.

54. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Rulemaking filed by Petroleum 
Communications is DENIED.

55. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes set forth in Appendix C WILL BECOME 
EFFECTIVE 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

56. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is TERMINATED. 


							FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



							Magalie Roman Salas
							Secretary 

APPENDIX   A

MAP OF EASTERN GULF COASTAL ZONE COORDINATES

 

APPENDIX  B

PHASE II AND DE MINIMIS EXTENSION APPLICATIONS

The following pending Phase II applications for unserved area licenses in the Gulf of Mexico 
Service Area (GMSA) and applications for de minimis extensions into the GMSA will be dismissed.  Any 
associated pleadings relating to these applications are also dismissed.

Cellular Block “A” Applications
Cellular Block  “B” Applications

07433-CL-MP-92
07440-CL-MP-92
01091-CL-CP-95
01094-CL-CP-95
01096-CL-CP-95
01328-CL-CP-95
01329-CL-CP-95
02025-CL-CP-95
02163-CL-CP-95
02165-CL-CP-95
04160-CL-CP-95
05605-CL-P2-95
05913-CL-MP-95
06361-CL-P2-95
01743-CL-P2-96
04235-CL-P2-96
04992-CL-P2-96
00700-CL-P2-97
02590-CL-  -97
02591-CL-  -97
02592-CL-  -97
02593-CL-  -97
02594-CL-  -97
02595-CL-  -97
02596-CL-  -97
02597-CL-  -97
02600-CL-P2-97
01242-CL-MP-98
01243-CL-MP-98
01244-CL-MP-98
01245-CL-MP-98
02407-CL-P2-98 


10152-CL-P-306-B-93
01621-CL-MP-93
01613-CL-MP-93
04076-CL-MP-95
04915-CL-MP-95
06794-CL-MP-95
07427-CL-MP-95
00103-CL-MP-96
02245-CL-MP-96
03856-CL-P2-97
03857-CL-P2-97
03858-CL-P2-97
03859-CL-MP-97
03860-CL-MP-97







APPENDIX  C

FINAL RULES

Part 22 of Title 47 of the Code of federal Regulations is amended as follows:

1. Section 22.99 is amended by adding the following definition, inserted in proper position to maintain 
alphabetical order:

§ 22.99  	Definitions

* * * * * 

Gulf of Mexico Service Area  (GMSA).  The cellular market comprising the water area of the Gulf of 
Mexico bounded on the West, North and East by the coastline.  Coastline, for this purpose, means the line 
of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea, and the 
line marking the seaward limit of inland waters.  Inland waters include bays, historic inland waters and 
waters circumscribed by a fringe of islands within the immediate vicinity of the shoreline.

* * * * *

2. Section 22.911 is amended by removing the Note to paragraph (a), and revising paragraphs (a)(2), to 
read as follows:

§ 22.911	Cellular geographic service area.
 
* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) For cellular systems with facilities located within the Gulf of Mexico Service Area, the distance from 
a cell transmitting antenna to its SAB along each cardinal radial is calculated as follows:
 
* * * * * 

3. Section 22.946 is amended by adding a new table H-1 following paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 22.946	Service commencement and construction periods for cellular systems

* * * * *

Type of cellular system
Required to commence 
service in
The first system authorized on each channel block in markets 1-90
36 months
The first system authorized on each channel block in all other 
markets and any subsequent systems authorized pursuant to contracts 
in partitioned markets
18 months
The first system authorized on each channel block in the Gulf of 
Mexico Exclusive Zone
No requirement
All other systems
12 months

* * * * *

4. Section 22.947 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph to read as follows:

§ 22.947	Five-year buildout period.

Except for systems authorized in the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone, the licensee of the first cellular 
system authorized * * *

* * * * *

5. Section 22.949 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph to read as follows:

§ 22.949	Unserved area licensing process.

This section sets forth the process for licensing unserved areas in cellular markets on channel blocks for 
which the five year build-out period has expired.  This process has two phases: Phase I and Phase II.  This 
section also sets forth the Phase II process applicable to applications to serve the Gulf of Mexico Coastal 
Zone.

* * * * *

6. A new Section 22.950 is added to read as follows:

§ 22.950	Provision of service in the Gulf of Mexico Service Area (GMSA)

The GMSA has been divided into two areas for licensing purposes, the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone 
(GMEZ) and the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Zone (GMCZ). This section describes these areas and sets forth 
the process for licensing facilities in these two respective areas within the GMSA.

(a) The GMEZ and GMCZ are defined as follows:  

(1) Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone.  The geographical area within the Gulf of Mexico Service Area that 
lies between the coastline line and the southern demarcation line of the Gulf of Mexico Service Area, 
excluding the area comprising the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Zone.

(2) Gulf of Mexico Coastal Zone.  The geographical area within the Gulf of Mexico Service Area that lies 
between the coast line of Florida and a line extending approximately twelve nautical miles due south from 
the coastline boundary of the States of Florida and Alabama, and continuing along the west coast of 
Florida at a distance of twelve nautical miles from the shoreline.  The line is defined by Great Circle arcs 
connecting the following points (geographical coordinates listed as North Latitude, West Longitude) 
consecutively in the order listed:


(1) 30?16’49”N 87?31’06”W		 (9)	28?34’41”N 82?53’38”W
(2) 30?04’35”N 87?31’06”W		(10)	27?50’39”N 83?04’27”W
(3) 30?10’56”N 86?26’53”W		(11)	26?24’22”N 82?23’22”W
(4) 30?03’00”N 86?00’29”W		(12)	25?41’39”N 81?49’40”W
(5) 29?33’00”N 85?32’49”W		(13)	24?59’02”N 81?15’04”W
(6) 29?23’21”N 85?02’06”W		(14)	24?44’23”N 81?57’04”W
(7) 29?49’44”N 83?59’02”W		(15)	24?32’37”N 82?02’01”W
(8) 28?54’00”N 83?05’33”W


(a) Service Area Boundary Calculation.  The service area boundary of a cell site located within the Gulf 
of Mexico Service Area is calculated pursuant to section 22.911(a)(2) of this chapter.   Otherwise, the 
service area boundary is calculated pursuant to section 22.911(a)(1) or (b) of this chapter. 

(b) Operation within the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone (GMEZ). GMEZ licensees have exclusive right 
to provide service in the GMEZ, and may add, modify, or remove facilities anywhere within the GMEZ 
without prior Commission approval. There is no five-year buildout period for GMEZ licensees, no 
requirement to file system information update maps pursuant to 22.947 of this chapter, and no unserved 
area licensing procedure for the GMEZ. 

(c) Operation within the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Zone (GMCZ). The GMCZ is subject to the Phase II 
unserved area licensing procedures set forth in section 22.949(b) of this chapter.







APPENDIX D

FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS	
 
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),  an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) was incorporated in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 97-
112 and CC Docket No. 90-6, released April 16, 1997 (Second Further Notice).   The Commission 
sought written public comment on the proposals in the Second Further Notice, including comment on the 
IRFA.  The comments received are discussed below.  This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
conforms to the RFA. 

A.	Need for, and Objectives of, the Order

2.  In this Report and Order, we resolve certain issues raised in the Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, in which we proposed changes to our cellular service rules for 
the Gulf of Mexico Service Area (GMSA).  Our decision also responds to the remand by the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Petroleum Communications v. FCC,  
which was the result of an appeal of prior rules for licensing in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) adopted in the 
Commission’s Unserved Area Third Report and Order. 

3.  In the PetroCom decision, the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded certain aspects of the 
unserved area rules as they applied to the Gulf.  The Court found that the Commission had failed 
adequately to consider the distinctive nature of Gulf-based service, which relied on movable drilling 
platforms for placement of cell sites, in comparison to land-based service, which used stationary sites.  
The Court stated that, while it did not foreclose the possibility of a convincing rationale for applying a 
uniform standard to both Gulf and land-based licensees, the Commission had failed to adequately justify 
the decision in the Unserved Area proceeding to treat Gulf licensees in the same manner as land-based 
cellular licensees in light of their reliance on transitory sites.   The Court remanded the issue and 
instructed the Commission to vacate the rule that defined the Gulf carriers’ Cellular Geographic Service 
Areas (CGSA) based on their areas of actual service.   The effect of the remand was the restoration of the 
original rules that defined the service area of the Gulf carriers as the entire GMSA, regardless of the 
location of their platform-based cell sites.

4. Following the PetroCom decision, the Commission issued the Second Further Notice, in which it 
initiated a comprehensive reexamination of the cellular service rules for the Gulf.   Specifically, the 
Commission proposed dividing the GMSA into a Coastal Zone and an Exclusive Zone.  Under this 
proposal, the Coastal Zone would consist of the portion of the GMSA extending from the coastline of the 
Gulf of Mexico to the twelve-mile offshore limit, while the Exclusive Zone would extend from the 
twelve-mile limit to the southern boundary of the GMSA.  In the Exclusive Zone, the two existing Gulf 
carriers would be able to move their offshore transmitters freely and to expand or modify their systems 
without being required to file additional applications, obtain prior Commission approval, or face 
competing applications for the right to serve the territory.   In the Coastal Zone, we proposed to apply 
our Phase II unserved area licensing rules, as adopted in the Competitive Bidding  Ninth Report and 
Order.   Thus, within the Coastal Zone, any qualified applicant (including both Gulf and land-based 
carriers) would be permitted to serve unserved areas, and all mutually exclusive applications would be 
subject to competitive bidding procedures.

5. In this Report and Order, we adopt a bifurcated approach to cellular licensing in the Gulf, based 
on the differences between the deployment of cellular service in the Eastern Gulf (the Florida Gulf coast) 
and the Western Gulf (the Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama Gulf Coast).  In the Eastern Gulf, 
where there are no offshore oil and gas drilling platforms on which to site cellular facilities, we adopt our 
proposal to establish a Coastal Zone in which our cellular unserved area licensing rules will apply.  In the 
Western Gulf, we find that the extensive deployment of both Gulf-based and land-based facilities that has 
occurred in the past few years makes adoption of our Second Further Notice proposal impractical.  
Instead, we conclude that cellular service in the Western Gulf should continue to be governed by current 
rules, with certain modifications to facilitate negotiated solutions to ongoing coverage conflicts between 
Gulf-based and land-based carriers.  Accordingly, we establish the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone, 
encompassing the Western Gulf and areas of the Eastern Gulf outside of the Coastal Zone, in which the 
Gulf carriers will have the exclusive right to operate.

6. The Second Further Notice also requested comment regarding possible operations in the Gulf by 
Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) licensees for services other than cellular.   Given the 
limited comment we have received on these issues, we decline to adopt specific licensing and service 
rules for the provision of non-cellular services in the Gulf at this time.  We conclude, however, that the 
boundaries of non-cellular CMRS markets with market areas that are derived from the aggregation of 
counties (e.g. Economic Areas, Basic Trading Areas), are coterminous with county boundaries absent 
specific service rules to the contrary.

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

7. Although we have received a number of comments in response to the Second Further Notice, we 
received only one comment in response to the IRFA.  However, as described in Section E. below, we 
have nonetheless considered potential significant economic impacts of the rules on small entities. 

8. Comments raised in response to the Second Further Notice regarding proposals that may have an 
impact on small entities.  In response to the Second Further Notice, we received a number of comments 
and alternative  proposals from land-based and Gulf-based carriers, many of which have been 
supplemented recently with ex parte presentations.  Some commenting land carriers generally support our 
proposal to bifurcate the GMSA into a Coastal Zone and Exclusive Zone,  while most oppose our 
proposal to use cellular unserved area licensing rules to award licenses in the Coastal Zone.   Many of 
the land-based carriers support a proposal by ALLTEL to treat the Coastal Zone as a “buffer zone” 
extending twelve miles out to sea from the Gulf coastline.  Within this buffer zone, ALLTEL proposes 
that Gulf and land carriers could freely extend their service area boundaries (SABs), subject to mandatory 
frequency coordination, but without protection from subscriber capture.   In the GMSA outside the 
buffer zone, Gulf carriers would be fully protected from interference.   

9. A second alternative proposal has been advanced by PetroCom, a Gulf licensee, and US Cellular, 
an adjacent land-based licensee in certain markets.  PetroCom and US Cellular advocate a bifurcated 
approach in the Eastern and Western Gulf.  In the Eastern Gulf, they  propose that we extend the GMSA 
boundary ten miles seaward from the shoreline, thus allowing land-based carriers in Florida to expand 
their coverage over water to that extent.  In the Western Gulf, PetroCom and US Cellular would retain the 
existing GMSA boundary along the coastline, and for a period of five years would prohibit either side 
from expanding over that boundary without the other carrier’s consent.  After five years, their proposal 
would allow a land carrier to serve portions of the Gulf from land without consent from the Gulf carrier, 
so long as the latter was not serving that area, but the Gulf carrier would have the right to “reclaim” the 
area if a new or relocated drilling platform enabled it to provide service. 

10. Another commenter, Coastel, argues that the current rules are sufficient to meet the 
Commission’s objectives, and therefore proposes that we terminate this rulemaking without adopting new 
rules.   Coastel asserts that the Gulf carriers have substantially expanded their coverage of the Gulf in 
recent years, eliminating gaps in coverage and providing more reliable service to coastal waters in the 
Gulf.   Coastel contends that this change in circumstances obviates the need for further rulemaking, and 
argues that the Commission’s proposals in the Second Further Notice would not reduce conflict because 
many issues would still remain to be resolved between carriers.  

11. With respect to the issue of whether or not to create Gulf of Mexico service areas for non-cellular 
commercial mobile radio services (CMRS), a few commenters state that customers in the Gulf would 
benefit from additional CMRS options.   Others, however, oppose the creation of additional market 
areas in the Gulf.   Commenters argue that creating Gulf area licenses in other services would create 
more problems than would be solved. A few commenters assert that incumbent licensees with markets 
adjacent to the Gulf are already authorized to serve the Gulf's offshore areas.  

12. Certain commenters also express concern over our proposal to dismiss all pending Phase II and 
de minimis applications.   Some commenters object to our dismissing applications because applicants 
have spent time and resources to file the applications, and suggest that we process the pending 
applications instead. 

13. Further, the two Gulf carriers argue that they should be permitted to site their transmitters on 
land.   Other commenters argue that such sites should not be permitted, because interference and capture 
issues will likely arise if Gulf carriers are permitted to locate transmitters on land without the land-based 
carrier's consent.   Commenters also generally oppose the proposal to adopt a “hybrid” propagation 
approach that would account for signals in the Gulf coastal region that are transmitted over both land and 
water.   Commenters argue that a hybrid formula would be unworkable and expensive. 

14.  Comment in response to the IRFA.  In an ex parte submission filed on August 21, 2001, 
PetroCom revised its proposal and that of U.S. Cellular for consideration by the Commission as an 
alternative to the agency’s proposed rules in this proceeding pursuant to the RFA.   PetroCom contends 
that it has opposed any changes to the current definition of its CGSA on the Western (non-Florida) side of 
the Gulf where it has fully built out infrastructure providing cellular service to customers throughout the 
proposed Coastal Zone, and that such action would adversely impact the proposed Coastal Zone rules.   
PetroCom states that there is no factual, legal or policy reason to change the current rules that require it’s 
consent to the SAB extensions of land carriers that cross the coastline into it’s CGSA. 

15. PetroCom asserts that paragraphs 64-72 of the Second Further Notice violates several RFA 
requirements.   Among its assertions, PetroCom states that the Commission’s IRFA does not describe 
the impact of the proposed Coastal Zone on small entities, and that the Commission failed to describe 
alternatives to the Coastal Zone as required by the RFA.  Further, PetroCom asserts that the 
Commission failed to provide a small entity impact analysis with respect to the agency’s proposal and an 
analysis of alternatives.   Further still, PetroCom calls attention to the Commission’s IRFA in the 
Second Further Notice, which it avers, contained no discussion or analysis of the 15-day reporting rule 
that was proposed in paragraph 47 which conflicts with Section 1.947 of the rules that contains a 30-day 
reporting rule.   PetroCom also asserts that the Commission’s definition of a small business has not 
complied with SBA rules. 

16. PetroCom states that there is nothing in the record that will support a finding in an FRFA that the 
creation of a Coastal Zone as proposed in the Second Further Notice is the best alternative.   Further, 
PetroCom asserts that the alternatives advocated by other carriers (see infra) will significantly affect the 
annual revenues of the Gulf carriers.   PetroCom argues that, among the various alternatives, its joint 
proposal best minimizes adverse impacts on small entities. 

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

17.   The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the 
number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.   The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”   In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.   A “small business 
concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA). 

18. Cellular Licensees.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small 
entities specific to cellular licensees.  Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition 
under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) companies.  This provides that a small entity 
is a radiotelephone  (wireless) company employing no more than 1,500 persons.   According to the 
Census Bureau, only twelve radiotelephone (wireless) firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which 
operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.   Even if all twelve of these firms were cellular 
telephone companies, nearly all cellular carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition.  In 
addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several 
licenses.  According to a recent Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet data, 806 wireless telephony 
providers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either cellular service or Personal 
Communications Service (PCS) services, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) telephony carriers, which 
are placed together in the data.   We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not 
independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business 
concerns under the SBA's definition.  We estimate that there are fewer than 806 small wireless service 
providers that may be affected by these revised rules.

19. 220 MHz Radio Service – Phase I Licensees.  The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II 
licenses.  Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993.  There are approximately 1,515 
such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 
MHz band.  The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to 
such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees.  To estimate the number of such licensees that are small 
businesses, we apply the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone (Wireless) 
Communications companies.  This definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone (wireless) 
company employing no more than 1,500 persons.   According to the Census Bureau, only 12 
radiotelephone (wireless) firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 
or more employees.   If this general ratio continues in 2001 in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, 
we estimate that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's definition.

20. 220 MHz Radio Service – Phase II Licensees.  The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, 
and is subject to spectrum auctions.  In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, we adopted criteria for 
defining small and very small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special 
provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments.   We have defined a small business as an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding 
$15 million for the preceding three years.  A very small business is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the 
preceding three years.   The SBA has approved these definitions.   Auctions of Phase II licenses 
commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.   In the first auction, 908 licenses 
were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas:  three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional 
Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses.  Of the 908 licenses 
auctioned, 693 were sold.  Thirty-nine small businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction.  The 
second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses.  Fourteen companies 
claiming small business status won 158 licenses. 
 
21. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses.  In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, we adopted criteria for 
defining small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for 
special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments.   We have defined a small business 
as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.  Additionally, a very small business is defined as an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not 
more than $3 million for the preceding three years.  An auction of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA) 
licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000.   Of the 104 licenses 
auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to 9 bidders.  Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total 
of 26 licenses.  A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and 
closed on February 21, 2001.  All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders.  One of these 
bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses. 

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

23. Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS).  The broadband PCS spectrum is divided 
into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block.  
The Commission defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of 
less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years.   For Block F, an additional classification for 
“very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with their affiliates, has average 
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.   These regulations 
defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA.   No 
small businesses within the SBA-approved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B.  
There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions.  A total of 93 
small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and 
F.   On March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 48 
small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the reauction of 422 C 
and F Block licenses.  Of the 35 winning bidders, 30 were small business entities.  Based on this 
information, we conclude that there are approximately 261 small entity broadband PCS providers as 
defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 

24. Narrowband PCS.  The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional licenses for 
narrowband PCS.  There are 11 nationwide and 30 regional licensees for narrowband PCS.  The 
Commission does not have sufficient information to determine whether any of these licensees are small 
businesses within the SBA-approved definition for radiotelephone companies.  At present, there have 
been no auctions held for the major trading area (MTA) and basic trading area (BTA) narrowband PCS 
licenses.  The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licenses and 2,958 BTA licenses will be 
awarded by auction.  Such auctions have not yet been scheduled, however.  Given that nearly all 
radiotelephone companies have no more than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number 
of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of this IRFA, 
that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

25. Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR).   Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1), the Commission has 
defined “small business” for purposes of auctioning 900 MHz SMR licenses, 800 MHz SMR licenses for 
the upper 200 channels, and 800 MHz SMR licenses for the lower 230 channels on the 800 MHz band as 
a firm that has had average annual gross revenues of $15 million or less in the three preceding calendar 
years.  The SBA has approved this small business size standard for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz auctions.  
Sixty winning bidders for geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band qualified as small 
businesses under the $15 million size standard. The auction of the 525 800 MHz SMR geographic area 
licenses for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 8, 1997.  
Ten (10) winning bidders for geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR 
band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard.

26. The auction of the 1,030 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category 
channels began on August 16, 2000, and was completed on September 1, 2000.  Eleven (11) winning 
bidders for geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band 
qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard.  The Commission anticipates that a total 
of 2,823 EA licenses will be auctioned in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service.  Therefore, 
we conclude that the number of 800 MHz SMR geographic area licensees for the lower 80 channels that 
may ultimately be affected by these proposals could be as many as 2,823.  In addition, there are numerous 
incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees on the 800 and 900 MHz band.  The Commission awards bidding 
credits in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses to firms that had revenues 
of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years. 
 
D.	Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

27. In this Report and Order, we reexamine our cellular service rules as they apply to the Gulf of 
Mexico Service Area.  Our principal goals in this proceeding are to establish a comprehensive regulatory 
scheme that will reduce conflict between water-based and land-based carriers, to provide regulatory 
flexibility to Gulf carriers because of the transitory nature of water-based sites, and to provide reliable, 
seamless service to the Gulf region.  We do not impose reporting or record keeping requirements in this 
Report and Order.

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

28.  The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in 
developing its 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 or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, 
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 

29.  Creation of the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone and Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone.  The record in 
this proceeding demonstrates that different approaches toward the Eastern and Western Gulf are 
warranted.  Unlike the Western Gulf, where the Gulf carriers have substantial offshore operations, the 
Eastern Gulf has no offshore oil or gas drilling platforms, and consequently, the Gulf carriers have no 
offshore base stations from which to provide service in the coastal waters off Florida.  As we explain in 
our Report and Order, the best way to ensure that seamless cellular service is provided in the Eastern 
Gulf – both on land and in coastal waters -- is to create a Coastal Zone along the eastern portion of the 
GMSA.  The current positioning of the eastern GMSA boundary directly along the Florida coastline does 
not accomplish this because it requires land carriers to engineer their systems to limit signal strength 
along the coast so as to avoid extending their coverage over water. 

30.  Establishing an Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone will improve cellular service to coastal areas by 
providing an opportunity for land-based carriers to extend their service area contours into territorial 
coastal waters, which will in turn enable them to add cell sites close to shore and to increase signal 
strength (and resulting coverage) from existing sites.  This will not only lead to improved coverage of 
coastal communities, beach resorts, and coastal roads, but will also facilitate service to coastal boat traffic 
operating close to shore that can be served from land-based transmitters. 

31. The remainder of the eastern half of the Gulf that is not included in the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone 
will be designated, along with the entire Western Gulf, as the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone.  In this 
area, as proposed in the Second Further Notice, the Gulf carriers will have the unrestricted and exclusive 
right to operate cellular facilities.  The Gulf carriers will have full flexibility to build, relocate, modify and 
remove offshore facilities throughout the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone without seeking prior FCC 
approval or facing competing applications. While we do not agree with Coastel’s position that no 
revisions to the rules are required, we believe that with relatively minor modifications, the current rules 
should provide sufficient incentives for both Gulf and land carriers to negotiate agreements that lead to 
seamless cellular coverage in coastal areas at competitive rates.

32.  We recognize that as a result of our decision to apply unserved area licensing rules to the Eastern 
Gulf Coastal Zone, the Gulf carriers will no longer have the exclusive right to serve Florida coastal waters 
as part of the GMSA.  We must weigh, however, not only the interests of the Gulf carriers, but also the 
interests of adjacent land-based carriers and, most of all, the need to provide cellular subscribers in the 
coastal region with seamless coverage by the most technically efficient means, whether from land or 
water-based sites.  Because the Gulf carriers have no operations in the Eastern Gulf, our decision will not 
result in any reduction in cellular service or stranded investment in cellular facilities by the Gulf carriers.  
Moreover, given the lack of existing or planned installation of offshore platforms in the Eastern Gulf 
Coastal Zone, there is no likelihood that the Gulf carriers would be in a position to provide service there 
in the foreseeable future.  Nonetheless, our decision does not preclude the Gulf carriers from seeking to 
provide service in the Coastal Zone in conformity with the unserved area licensing rules we are adopting 
for this region, either from land-based sites or from offshore platforms, at any point in the future should 
they become available. 

33. We decline to adopt the ALLTEL proposal that the Coastal Zone be available for use by both 
Gulf and land-based carriers on a shared, coordinated basis.  Although ALLTEL’s proposal is designed to 
provide a basis for negotiated agreements, we believe the effect of this proposal would be to turn the 
Coastal Zone into a “no-man’s land” where the prohibition against capture of a neighboring carrier’s 
subscriber traffic would not apply.  Moreover, by eliminating capture protection in a portion of the 
GMSA while retaining it in the CGSAs of the adjacent land carriers, the effect of the ALLTEL proposal 
would be to shift the protections afforded by existing rules in favor of the land carriers and against the 
Gulf carriers.  We are concerned that adopting the ALLTEL proposal could reduce the incentive for land 
carriers to negotiate with Gulf carriers regarding traffic capture in the Coastal Zone.  In addition, because 
the ALLTEL proposal does not provide a mechanism for settling frequency coordination disputes, there is 
a substantial likelihood that the Commission would be burdened with resolving such matters in instances 
where frequency coordination failed. 

34. Service Area Boundary Formula.  In this Report and Order we conclude that we should retain the 
existing land-based and water-based SAB formulas.  We conclude that the two-formula approach 
adequately accounts for the different characteristics of signal propagation over land and water, and are 
easier to use than a hybrid formula.  Moreover, retaining the existing SAB formulas is consistent with our 
overall decision to maintain the existing relationship between land and Gulf carriers in the Western Gulf 
as the basis for negotiated solution of their operational conflicts.

35.  Placement of Transmitters.  The Gulf carriers urge us to allow them to site their transmitters on 
land without the express consent of the applicable land-based licensees.  We believe that a blanket 
prohibition against Gulf carriers placing their transmitters on land is not necessary, and we will rely on 
our CGSA and SAB extension rules to determine whether or not the placement of a particular transmitter 
is permissible.   Although the Gulf carriers argue that this action is insufficient, we believe that this will 
provide additional flexibility that will facilitate contractual resolutions of the issues facing adjacent 
carriers along the Gulf of Mexico.

36. Pending applications.  In our Report and Order, we conclude that areas of the Eastern Gulf 
Coastal Zone that do not receive cellular service shall be defined as unserved areas and that Phase II 
competitive bidding procedures implemented for those areas.  All unserved area applications previously 
filed to serve Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone areas are dismissed, as well as their associated petitions to deny.  
Similarly, we dismiss all pending de minimis extensions into the Gulf in this Report and Order.  We 
considered whether or not the dismissal of pending licenses would impose significant additional costs or 
burdens on carriers.  We find that this action will not prejudice carriers because such applicants have the 
opportunity to resubmit applications to the extent allowed under the new rules adopted in the Report and 
Order.  We conclude that, in light of the passage of several years since the applications were filed, 
dismissing applications filed under superseded rules and allowing carriers currently serving or desiring to 
serve the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone to submit new applications is the fairest and most efficient manner to 
license cellular service in that region.

Report to Congress:  The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, including this FRFA, 
in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996.   In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.  A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. 
  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, WT Docket No. 97-112 and CC Docket No. 90-6, Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 4578 (1997) (Second Further Notice).  Although the Second Further 
Notice was adopted and released in 1997, it was inadvertently not published in the Federal Register at that time, as 
required under the Administrative Procedure Act.  The Second Further Notice was published in the Federal Register 
on April 25, 2000.  65 Fed. Reg. 24168.

  Petroleum Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (PetroCom).

  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, CC Docket 90-6, Third Report and 
Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 7 FCC Rcd 7183 (1992) (Unserved Area Third 
Report and Order).

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4601, para. 63. 

  See Section III.B., infra. 

  Applications of Petroleum Communications, Inc. and Gulf Cellular Associates for New Domestic Cellular Radio 
Telecommunications Service Systems in the Gulf of Mexico, Memorandum Opinion and Order, File No. 30003-CL-
P-84, Mimeo No. 6337 (CCB 1985).  The history of the licensing and operation of cellular service in the Gulf of 
Mexico is set forth in greater detail in the Second Further Notice.

   Id.

  A de minimis extension is a relatively small overlap of a service area boundary (SAB) contour into a neighboring 
market which is necessary for engineering reasons to adequately serve the market of the licensee who proposes the 
extension.  Great Lakes of Iowa, Inc., Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5572, 5573 (1993), citing 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 in CC Docket No. 90-6, First Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and 
Order on Reconsideration, 6 FCC Rcd 6185, n. 23 (1991).  De minimis extensions generally do not become part of 
the licensee's CGSA, are not entitled to interference protection, and must be pulled back if objectionable interference 
occurs to adjacent licensees.  Western Maine Cellular, Inc., Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8648 (1992).

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4578, para 2.

  The service area of each cell is the area within its SAB, which is calculated using propagation formulas set forth 
in the Commission’s rules.  47 C.F.R. § 22.911.  See Section III.C., infra.  

  47 C.F.R. § 22.912.

  PetroCom, 22 F.3d at 1173.

  Id. (vacating former rule section 22.903(a), as it applied to the Gulf-based carriers).

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4578, paras. 3-4.

  Id. at 4589, para. 27.

  In the alternative, the boundary would be represented by a line defined by geographic coordinates that closely 
approximates the twelve-mile mark.  See id.

  Id.  In effect, the licensees would have the exclusive right to expand, as in section 22.947(a), 47 C.F.R. § 
22.947(a), except that the right would continue throughout the license term rather than expire after a five-year 
buildout period.

  Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding; Amendment of Part 22 of 
the Commission’s Rules to Provide for the Filing and Processing of Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular 
Service and to Modify Other Cellular Rules, Ninth Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 14769 (1996).

  ALLTEL Further Comments at 9-10; AT&T Further Reply Comments at 2; BellSouth Further Comments at 2; 
Centennial Ex Parte at 2; Dobson Further Reply Comments at 3; GTE Further Comments at 13; and MobileTel 
Reply Comments at 2.

  Initially, many land-based carriers supported the creation of an Exclusive Zone but advocated extending their 
market boundaries to the boundary of the Exclusive Zone in lieu of creating a separate Coastal Zone.  See AT&T 
Wireless Comments at 4; AT&T Wireless Reply Comments at 4-5; Palmer Comments at 3-4; Texas RSA Reply 
Comments at 1-3; BellSouth Comments at 4; Centennial Reply Comments at 2; GTE Comments at 2-3; GTE Reply 
Comments at 3; MobileTel Comments at 2; MobileTel Reply Comments at 3; SBMS Comments at 9.  This 
approach, according to these commenters, would be consistent with geographic areas established in other services 
and would promote regulatory parity among wireless services.  360º Reply Comments at 5; AT&T Wireless 
Comments at 6; Centennial Reply Comments at 2; GTE Reply Comments at 9-10.

  ALLTEL Further Comments at 9-10.

  According to ALLTEL and supporting commenters, this two-zone approach simultaneously addresses the land 
carriers’ interest in providing reliable service to their customers throughout their licensed areas and the Gulf 
carriers’ interest in being able to relocate sites without forfeiting CGSA.  ALLTEL Further Comments at 9-10; 
AT&T Further Reply Comments at 2; BellSouth Further Comments at 2; Centennial Ex Parte at 2; Dobson Further 
Reply Comments at 3; GTE Further Comments at 13; and Mobiltel Reply Comments at 2.

   Joint Comments of Petroleum Communications, Inc. and U.S. Cellular Corporation, dated May 15, 2000.

   See Ex Parte Submission of Revised Proposal as Alternative to Proposed Rules Pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, filed by PetroCom, dated August 21, 2001.

  Comments of Bachow/Coastel at 5-6; Written Ex Parte Presentation of Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C., filed April 4, 
2001 at i. 

  Id. at 8.

  Coastel Further Comments at 5-6, 16.

  On July 12, 2001, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service issued a proposed Notice of 
Sale regarding a Federal natural gas and oil lease sale in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, to be conducted in December 
2001.  See Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 
181 in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, 66 Fed. Reg. 36592 (2001).  This lease sale would not lead to any potential Gulf 
carrier sites within the Coastal Zone as the sale area involved encompasses areas at least 100 miles away from the 
Florida coastline.

  Joint Comments of PetroCom and U.S. Cellular at 6.

  For discussion of the Western Gulf, see paras. 21-34, infra.

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4580, para. 32.  As proposed in the Second Further Notice, we will define 
the 12-mile Coastal Zone boundary by reference to a small number of specified coordinates in order to simplify 
application of these rules for licensees and applicants.  The coordinates are listed in section 22.950, and a map of these 
coordinates in the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone is attached at Appendix A.

  Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service, Report and 
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10735, para. 58 (1997).

  One U.S. nautical mile is equal to 6,080 feet or 1,853 kilometers. 

  Applicants wishing to serve the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone must file an application in accordance with our cellular 
Phase II unserved area licensing rules.  For example, a land-based carrier that proposes to construct new facilities 
along the Florida coast must file a Phase II cellular unserved area application if the proposed facilities produce a 
SAB contour extension into the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone.  Likewise, a Gulf-based carrier that wishes to extend 
coverage into the Eastern Gulf Coastal Zone must file a Phase II application.  If any such applications are granted, 
the contour extension will be incorporated into that licensee’s CGSA.  

   See e.g. Petition to Deny, filed by Petroleum Communications, dated September 9, 1992 (opposing de minimis 
extension by Galveston Cellular Telephone Company, for KNKA676). 

  See, e.g., Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Special Temporary Authority to ALLTEL Corporation 
Allowing Improvements in Cellular Coverage in Coastal Florida, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 6907 (WTB 1999).

  See licensing records for Call Signs KNKA412 (Coastel) and KNKA411 (PetroCom).

  BellSouth Comments at 3,7; BellSouth Further Comments at 1; 360° Communications Comments at 3-5; 360° 
Communications Reply Comments at 2-3; GTE July 2, 1997 Comments at 4, n.3, 6; GTE August 4, 1997 Comments 
at 4-6; AT&T Further Reply Comments at 1-2; MobileTel Further Reply Comments at 1.

  Coastel Reply Comments at 25; Coastel Further Comments at 6-7.

  See, e.g., GTE Reply Comments at 6; GTE Further Comments at 8-10; PetroCom Reply Comments at 3. See also 
Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C., v. GTE Wireless of the South, Inc., File No. WB/ENF-F-98-005, Order on 
Reconsideration, FCC 01-161 (rel. May 14, 2001).  At boundaries between adjacent carriers, calls made by one 
carrier’s customer from that carrier’s home territory may be “captured” by the adjacent carrier if the adjacent 
carrier’s signal is stronger at the location where the customer is making the call.  In that event, the customer is 
charged by the adjacent carrier as a roamer and subject to greater fees, even though the customer placed the call in 
his or her home territory.

  See, e.g., ALLTEL February 28, 2001 Ex Parte Filing at Att. 4; GTE Further Comments at 8-10; Verizon April 2, 
2001 Ex Parte Filing at 1-2.  According to the land carriers, roaming rates charged by Gulf carriers can be as high as 
$3.00 per minute.  ALLTEL February 28, 2001 Ex Parte Filing at Att. 4. 

  See e.g. Coastel Further Reply Comments at 7-9; PetroCom Further Reply Comments at 5-6; PetroCom March 1, 
2001 Ex Parte Filing at 1-2; PetroCom January 8, 2001 Ex Parte Filing at Att. 1, Att. 3.

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4594, paras. 36, 41.

  See paras. 9-10, supra.

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4588, para. 26.

  See Further Comments of Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C., dated May 15, 2000 (stating that Coastel doubled the number 
of its sites in the Gulf between 1997 and 2000); licensing records for Call Signs KNKA412 and KNKA411.   

  PetroCom states that it has either co-location or extension agreements in Houston/Galveston, Corpus Christi, 
Beaumont-Port-Arthur, Texas RSA No. 16, and Texas RSA No. 20 with land-based A-side carriers.  PetroCom 
January 8, 2001 Ex Parte Filing at Att. 2.

   For example, under certain collocation agreements, the land carriers own facilities for which PetroCom 
contributes construction costs.  The antennas of a collocated site are configured to keep a signal strength equal to 
PetroCom’s system at the coastline boundary.  The land carriers provide switching services for the origination and 
termination of calls, including calls in the Gulf areas, as well as switching services for authorized roamers, which 
include Gulf subscribers.  PetroCom pays the land carriers per-minute charges for switching and roaming services, 
and land carriers pay PetroCom a per-minute charge whenever a land carrier subscriber uses PetroCom’s system.  
See PetroCom Ex Parte filing, dated March 1, 2001.

  See Letter from Glenn S. Rabin, Vice President Federal Regulatory Affairs, ALLTEL Corporation, and Steven J. 
Hamrick, Counsel for Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C., to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, dated July 16, 2001.  As a result of their agreement, ALLTEL and Coastel jointly requested dismissal 
of four pending ALLTEL applications, three pending Coastel applications, and related petitions and pleadings, with 
respect to service in the Gulf.  See Joint Motion for Dismissal and Approval of Settlement Agreement, filed by 
ALLTEL and Coastel, August 22, 2001, at 2-4 (file nos. 00004996022, 0000223356, 0000125728, 0000105772, 
0000188467, 0000113774, 0000160419).  Their request was granted on September 27, 2001.  See “Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau Approves Settlement Agreement between Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C. and ALLTEL 
Illinois Limited Partnership,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 17084 (WTB 2001).

  For example, if a land-based carrier increased its effective radiated power to provide a stronger signal at the coastline 
-- which would be allowed under the ALLTEL proposal – it would benefit substantially on land because capture of its 
customers would be reduced inland from the coastline, but the land-based carrier would have little incentive to 
negotiate to reduce capture in the Coastal Zone because most of its customers would not benefit from such protection.  
  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4597, para. 50.  

  We reiterate that we will no longer prohibit land-based sites for the Gulf carriers, relying solely on our SAB 
extension rules to determine whether such sites will be permitted.

  Unserved Area Third Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 7184, paras. 5-6.  Prior to the adoption of the cellular 
unserved area rules, the CGSA was the area defined by the licensee as the area it intended to serve.  The 
Commission used the median 39 dBu field strength contour to represent reliable service. The Commission required 
applicants to identify the 39 dBu contour or contours within their CGSAs, and within which the applicant would 
provide reliable cellular service.  Former rule section 22.903 required that the combined 39 dBu contours of all base 
stations of a licensee must cover at least 75% of the licensee’s total CGSA.  The Gulf carriers, however, were not 
required to comply with the 75% coverage requirement.  See Amendment of the Commission's Rules for Rural 
Cellular Service, CC Docket 85-388, Second Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 2306, modified, Amendment of the 
Commission's Rules for Rural Cellular Service, CC Docket 85-388, Order on Reconsideration of Second Report and 
Order, 4 FCC Rcd 5377, 5379-5380 (1989); Amendment of the Commission's Rules for Rural Cellular Service, CC 
Docket 85-388, Fifth Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6401 (1988).  In the Unserved Area Second Report and Order, 
the Commission adopted a mathematical formula which approximated the 32 dBu contour which was believed to be 
the minimum strength required for reliable cellular service.  The Commission also required that the CGSAs of 
carriers be drawn back to be coterminous with their actual areas of service.   In the Unserved Area Third Report and 
Order, the Commission set out a separate mathematical formula applicable to the Gulf of Mexico service area.

  The water formula adopted by the Commission was based on measurement data submitted by PetroCom.   

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4593, para. 38.

  See Application of Petroleum Comms., Inc. to Construct a Developmental Cellular Radio Telephone System in 
the Gulf of Mexico, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 1020 (1983); Applications of 
Petroleum Comms., Inc. and Gulf Star Comms., Inc., and Fluor Engineers, Inc., for Authority to Construct Cellular 
Radio Telecommunications Systems in the Gulf of Mexico, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 
56 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 1651 (1984).

   See Applications of Petroleum Comms., Inc., and Gulf Cellular for New Domestic Cellular Radio 
Telecommunications Service Systems in the Gulf of Mexico, File No. 30003-CL-P-84,  Order on Reconsideration, 1 
FCC Rcd 511 (1986); Applications of Petroleum Comms., Inc., and Gulf Cellular for New Domestic Cellular Radio 
Telecommunications Service Systems in the Gulf of Mexico, File No. 30003-CL-P-84,  Order on Reconsideration, 2 
FCC Rcd 3695 (1987).

   Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4593-4594, para. 40.  See 47 C.F.R. § 22.912.  Section 22.912 provides 
that a SAB extension outside of a licensee’s CGSA and into an adjacent market is permissible if the extension is de 
minimis or if the extension results from a contract with applicants or other licensees to allow SAB extensions into 
their CGSAs.

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4587, para. 22.

  Id. at 4588-4589, para. 26.

  Id. at 4594, para. 41.

  Id.

 Id. at 4598, para. 56.

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4601, para. 63. 

  Id. at 4599-4601, paras. 58-63.

  Stratos Offshore Services Further Comments at 3-10.

  DW Communications Further Comments at 8-15.

  Sprint Further Comments at 1-7; Verizon Wireless Comments at 1-5.
  Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service, Report and 
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10735 (1997).

  Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01-171 (rel. May 29, 2001).

  In The Matter Of Service Rules For The 746-764 And 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions To Part 27 Of The 
Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000).

  Amendment to Parts 1, 2, 87, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules To License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, WT 
Docket No. 99-327, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01-151 (rel. May 17, 2001).

  In the Matter of Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 8634 (2000).

  The Commission recently created a Gulf licensing area with respect to the 698-746 MHz band [“Channels 52-59”] 
and is considering a Gulf market in 4.9 GHz.  See e.g. In the Matter of Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-
746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), GN Docket No. 01-74; Report and Order, FCC 01-364 
(release pending).

  For example, MTAs, BTAs, and EAs are all based on county boundaries.  The distance that the boundaries of 
coastal counties extend over water varies by state.  The county boundaries of Texas and Florida extend three marine 
leagues (nine nautical miles) out from the water line, the county boundary of Louisiana extends three imperial 
nautical miles (imperial nautical mile = 6080.2 feet) into the Gulf, and all other states' boundaries extend three 
nautical miles (approximately 3.3 statute miles) from the baseline into the Gulf.

  See Letter from Kenneth W. Burnley, Myers Keller Communications Law Group, to David Furth, Federal 
Communications Commission, dated February 21, 1997.

  See, e.g., call signs KNRU807-KNRU822. 

  See Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4600, para. 62.   We also sought comment on whether to create an 800 
MHz SMR Gulf geographic licensing area.  Id.

  PetroCom opposed creation of an SMR geographic Gulf licensing area, as did Nextel and AMTA.  See AMTA 
Comments at 6; Nextel Comments at 3-4; PetroCom Comments at 18-19; Nextel Reply Comments at 2-4; PetroCom 
Reply Comments at 25.  API and SOSCo (now Stratos) supported the idea.  API Comments at 7-8; SOSCo 
Comments at 5; SOSCo Reply Comments at 6.  In a January 2000 petition for reconsideration in the 800 MHz SMR 
proceeding, PetroCom reversed its prior position and sought the creation of a Gulf licensing area in the Lower 800 
MHz SMR band prior to the auction of EA licenses in that band.  See Petition for Reconsideration, PR Docket No. 
93-144, filed by Petroleum Communications, Inc., on January 19, 2000.  We received no comments on the petition.  
After the auction had occurred, we dismissed the petition, noting the pendency of this proceeding.   See Amendment 
of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency 
Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, Third Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 2866 (2001).  In light of the lack of 
comments and the time that has elapsed since PetroCom filed the petition, we conclude that the record does not 
support taking action in this proceeding based on PetroCom’s request.  

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

  Cellular Service and Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the Gulf of Mexico, WT Docket No. 97-112; 
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, CC Docket No. 90-6, Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 4578 (1997) (Second Further Notice).  Although the Second Further Notice 
was adopted and released in 1997, it was inadvertently not published in the Federal Register at that time, as required 
under the Administrative Procedure Act.  The Second Further Notice was published in the Federal Register on April 
25, 2000.  65 Fed. Reg. 24168.  The IRFA was inadvertently not published in the Federal Register at the time, as 
required by the RFA.  The IRFA was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 57798.

  See 5 U.S.C. § 604.

  Petroleum Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (PetroCom).

  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, CC Docket 90-6, Third Report and 
Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 7 FCC Rcd 7183 (1992) (Unserved Area Third 
Report and Order).

  PetroCom, 22 F.3d at 1173.

  Id. (vacating former rule section 22.903(a), as it applied to the Gulf carriers).

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4578, paras. 3-4.

  Id. at 4589, para. 27.

  Id.

  Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding; Amendment of Part 22 of 
the Commission’s Rules to Provide for the Filing and Processing of Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular 
Service and to Modify Other Cellular Rules, Ninth Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 14769 (1996).

  Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4601, para. 63.

  ALLTEL Further Comments at 9-10; AT&T Further Reply Comments at 2; BellSouth Further Comments at 2; 
Centennial Ex Parte at 2; Dobson Further Reply Comments at 3; GTE Further Comments at 13; and MobilTel Reply 
Comments at 2.

  Initially, many land-based carriers supported the creation of an Exclusive Zone but advocated extending their 
market boundaries to the boundary of the Exclusive Zone in lieu of creating a separate Coastal Zone.  See AT&T 
Wireless Comments at 4; AT&T Wireless Reply Comments at 4-5; Palmer Comments at 3-4; Texas RSA Reply 
Comments at 1-3; BellSouth Comments at 4; Centennial Reply Comments at 2; GTE Comments at 2-3; GTE Reply 
Comments at 3; MobileTel Comments at 2; MobileTel Reply Comments at 3; SBMS Comments at 9.  This 
approach, according to these commenters, would be consistent with geographic areas established in other services 
and would promote regulatory parity among wireless services. 360º Reply Comments at 5; AT&T Wireless 
Comments at 6; Centennial Reply Comments at 2; GTE Reply Comments at 9-10.

  ALLTEL Further Comments at 9-10.

  According to ALLTEL and supporting commenters, this two-zone approach simultaneously addresses the land 
carriers’ interest in providing reliable service to their customers throughout their licensed areas and the Gulf 
carriers’ interest in being able to relocate sites without forfeiting CGSA.  ALLTEL Further Comments at 9-10; 
AT&T Further Reply Comments at 2; BellSouth Further Comments at 2; Centennial Ex Parte at 2; Dobson Further 
Reply Comments at 3; GTE Further Comments at 13; and MobilTel Reply Comments at 2.

  PetroCom and US Cellular also propose that certain non-mutually exclusive Phase II applications to serve coastal 
waters should be granted.

  Comments of Bachow/Coastel at 5-6; Written Ex Parte Presentation of Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C., filed April 4, 
2001 at i. 

  Id. at 8.

  Coastel Further Comments at 5-6, 16.

  See e.g. ProNet Comments at 3; SOSCo Comments at 4; API Reply Comments at 4-5; Stratos Offshore Services 
Further Comments at 3-10.

  See e.g. BellSouth Reply Comments at 2-3; Nextel Reply Comments at 3; Sprint PCS Reply Comments at 2-3.
  DW Communications Further Comments at 8-15.

  See e.g. BellSouth Reply Comments at 2-3; Sprint PCS Reply Comments at 2; Sprint Further Comments at 1-7; 
Verizon Wireless Comments at 1-5.

  See e.g. Centennial Reply Comments at 8-9; Radiofone Comments at 8; PetroCom and US Cellular Joint 
Comments.

  See e.g. Coastel Comments at 25; Coastel Reply Comments at 24; PetroCom Comments at 13-14.

  See e.g. 360? Communications Comments at 10; AT&T Wireless Comments at 7; MobileTel Comments at 6; 
Palmer Comments at 12; AT&T Wireless Reply Comments at 7; BellSouth Reply Comments at 7-8; SBMS Reply 
Comments at 4.  

  See e.g. 360? Communications Comments at 7; AT&T Wireless Comments at 10; Palmer Comments at 10; 
Vanguard Comments at 5; Coastel Reply Comments at 18-19.

  See e.g. 360? Communications Comments at Attachment A, 3-4.  360? Communications argues that the hybrid 
formula would have to determine where the land/water boundaries exist and that the only way to do that in 
predictive models is through the use of digital topography data.  360º argues that use of the hybrid formula would 
place an undue burden upon carriers because the digital topography data is extremely expensive.

  See Ex Parte Submission of Revised Proposal as Alternative to Proposed Rules Pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of PetroCom at 1, filed August 21, 2001.

  Id. at 3-4.

  Id. at 4.

  Id. at 4-5.

  Id. at 5-6.

  Id.

  Id.

  Id. at 6.

  Id.

  Id. at 7-8.

  Id. at 10-11.

  5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

  5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

  5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”

  15 U.S.C. § 632.

   13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322.  
   1992 Census, Series UC92-S-1, at Table 5, NAICS code 513322.
   Trends in Telephone Service, Table 16.3 (December 2000).
   13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322.  
   U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of  Transportation, Communications, and 
Utilities, UC92-S-1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms; 1992, NAICS 
codes 513321, 513322, and 51333.

   220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70, at paras. 291-295 (1997).
   Id. at 11068-69, para. 291.
  See Letter to D. Phythyon, Chief, WirelessTelecommunications Bureau (FCC) from A. Alvarez, Administrator, 
SBA, dated January 6, 1998.
   See generally "220 MHz Service Auction Closes," Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).
   “FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made," Public 
Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 1085 (1999).
 
   “Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (1999).
 
   See Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket 
No. 99-168, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000).
 
   See generally “220 MHz Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, Report No. WT 98-36 (WTB, rel. October 23, 
1998).
 
   “700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590.
 
   13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

   Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (February 19, 1999).

   See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules – Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 
paras. 57- 60  (1996); see also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

   See id. at para. 60.

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

   FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No. 71744 (rel. January 14, 1997).
   47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1). 

  5 U.S.C. § 603 (c).

  See 47 C.F.R. § 22.912.  Section 22.912 provides that a SAB extension outside of a licensee’s CGSA and into an 
adjacent market is permissible if the extension is de minimis or if the extension results from a contract with 
applicants or other licensees to allow SAB extensions into their CGSAs.

  See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

  See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

 
 


	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-387 



1