FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 2, Pages 937 to 1877, February 6 - February 17, 2012 Page: 1,825
vii, 937-1877 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Chambers Overlay Licensee be required to demonstrate that it has built out a Cellular system that is
providing signal coverage and offering service over at least 35% of the geographic area of its license
authorization within four years of initial license grant and at least 70% of the geographic area of its
license authorization by the end of the license term, with failure to meet these build-out deadlines
resulting in automatic forfeiture of the license. We further propose that, after the build-out requirements
have been met, the Chambers Overlay Licensee should be subject to the same rules and obligations that
we apply to the other Overlay Licenses issued in Stage I of the transition. For example, we seek comment
in the NPRM on whether Overlay Licensees should be subject to performance requirements.
15. The Commission also proposes that all Cellular licensees be subject to a field strength limit at
their respective license boundaries and that a median field strength limit of 40 dBiV/m is appropriate for
the Cellular Band. Coordination among co-channel licensees regarding channel usage will remain
essential in actually preventing harmful interference. We therefore propose to retain the current Cellular
Service rule mandating coordination in certain circumstances (section 22.907), but we also propose to
allow Cellular licensees to negotiate contractual agreements specifying different field strength limits.
This will provide licensees with additional flexibility in their operations.
16. In this NPRM, we also propose various other changes in parts I and 22 of the Commission's
rules that apply to Cellular Service licensees. For example, we propose to streamline the application
requirements for site-based Unserved Area applications, notably section 22.953 (deleting certain technical
data requirements that, going forward, we believe will no longer be routinely necessary). We also
propose to delete obsolete and outdated provisions, such as those requiring certifications associated with
cessation of analog service, often referred to as the "analog sunset." Here too, our proposals are
consistent with the Commission's regulatory reform agenda and its Data Innovation Initiative. The
proposed rules are set forth in Appendix E and we encourage all interested parties to review them
carefully and comment on them with specificity.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business,
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following
four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements
or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of
the rule, or any part thereof for small entities.9
18. The NPRM discusses several alternatives to the proposed two-stage transition. These include,
for example, alternatives that would entail transition via auction in more than two stages as well as
possible exemption for certain extremely rural markets such as Alaskan markets and others with special
build-out challenges. The NPRM also discusses proposals put forth by industry stakeholders thus far in
this proceeding, including an approach that would not entail competitive bidding. The NPRM specifically
invites interested parties to comment on these various alternatives and to suggest other alternative
proposals. At this time, the Commission has not excluded any alternative proposal from its consideration,
but it would do so in this proceeding if the record indicates that a particular proposal would have a1825
19 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 12-20
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 2, Pages 937 to 1877, February 6 - February 17, 2012, book, February 2012; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc94251/m1/903/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.