WPC 2MBVRKZ3|j%7jC:,߈Xj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4Si - 7130 - leftHPLA4SAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\^]XP2o;K Z X2#Xj\  P6G;߈XP#3|j%"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN` `  hh#(@- ( a8Right Par+W bw'Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersW 8/5CRK+W P w?@` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp footnote referencefootnote reference!4#XP\  P6QXP#2F&"##v$$%%%Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font"11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote textfootnote text# HeadingwK-n6bChapter Heading=(G>wK@-H*G>FwE~wK\E$3/ 0 *  ׃  Right Par.n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E%<12@    2)&x&'^ '(dj')'Subheadingn6bSubheading >8=(G>wK@/H*G>FwE~wK\E&.3 4  FOOTNOTEK0n6bFootnote - AppearancewK@0H*G>FwE~wK\E'56HIGHLIGHT 1n6bItalics and Bold(G>wK@1H*G>FwE~wK\E(78 DRAFT ONK2n6bHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateH*G>FwE~wK\E)o9: X 8Q 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  PG;XP#`$ (#DDRAFTă `(#CD3 1, 4D  Q2-*)+Xc*,c*-c,DRAFT OFF6n6bTurn Draft Style offwK@6H*G>FwE~wK\E*D;<    HEADERwK7n6bHeader A - AppearancewK@7H*G>FwE~wK\E+=>LETTER LANDn6bLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5@8H*G>FwE~wK\E, ?@ '3   LEGAL LANDn6bLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5K@9H*G>FwE~wK\E- AB 'A   2?1.c-/c/0ny01X0LETTER PORTn6bLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11K@:H*G>FwE~wK\E. CD 3'   LEGAL PORTn6bLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14wK@;H*G>FwE~wK\E/ EF A'   TITLE~wK<n6bTitle of a DocumentwK@<H*G>FwE~wK\E0GH* ăFOOTERwK=n6bFooter A - AppearancewK@=H*G>FwE~wK\E1IJ2)32q13i14d[25j2BLOCK QUOTEn6bSmall, single-spaced, indentedH*G>FwE~wK\E2KL HEADING 3?n6b3rd Heading LevelG>wK@?H*G>FwE~wK\E3MN HIGHLIGHT 2n6bLarge and Bold=(G>wK@@H*G>FwE~wK\E4OP HIGHLIGHT 3n6bLarge, Italicized and UnderscoredH*G>FwE~wK\E5 Q R2t96[37I58'79<88LETTERHEADn6bLetterhead - date/marginswK@BH*G>FwE~wK\E6!S T X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   INVOICE FEEn6bFee Amount for Math Invoice@CH*G>FwE~wK\E7UV X, $0  MEMORANDUMn6bMemo Page Format(G>wK@DH*G>FwE~wK\E8WX  * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXPn6bExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*G>FwE~wK\E9YZ ,p, $02@:<9;:<Xc?=[?INVOICE TOTn6bTotals Invoice for Math MacroFH*G>FwE~wK\E:[\ p,p, $0INVOICE HEADn6bHeading Portion of Math InvoiceH*G>FwE~wK\E;]^   p,X 9 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  PG;XP# XX  *$HHީ  ӧ   XX  1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Ҳ#Xj\  PG;XP# XX  *$HHީNORMALwKJn6bReturn to Normal TypestyleK@JH*G>FwE~wK\E<_`SMALL~wKKn6bSmall Typestyle=(G>wK@KH*G>FwE~wK\E=ab2A>[H@?[@@[@A[YAFINEE~wKLn6bFine Typestyle=(G>wK@LH*G>FwE~wK\E>cdLARGE~wKMn6bLarge Typestyle=(G>wK@MH*G>FwE~wK\E?efEXTRA LARGEn6bExtra Large TypestylewK@NH*G>FwE~wK\E@ghVERY LARGEn6bVery Large TypestylewK@OH*G>FwE~wK\EAij2EBACpCDqBDEeDENVELOPEKPn6bStandard Business Envelope with Header>FwE~wK\EBkl V,  X  , 8N#Xj\  PG;XP#   N `   2XwE~wKRn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@RH*G>FwE~wK\ECmn` ` ` 3XwE~wKSn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@SH*G>FwE~wK\EDo p . 4XwE~wKTn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@TH*G>FwE~wK\EE qr 2DGFeJEGEHpBFIF5XwE~wKUn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@UH*G>FwE~wK\EF st 6XwE~wKVn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@VH*G>FwE~wK\EG*uv   7XwE~wKWn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@WH*G>FwE~wK\EHwx` ` ` 8XwE~wKXn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EI8yz@   2IJvGKHLHMJI9XwE~wKYn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EJA{|@` `  ` ` ` 10wE~wKZn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@ZH*G>FwE~wK\EK0} ~    11wE~wK[n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\ELJ` ` @  ` `  12wE~wK\n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EMS` `  @  27MN)JOJPKQfL13wE~wK]n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EN\` `  @hh# hhh 14wE~wK^n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EOe` `  hh#@( hh# 15wE~wK_n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EPn` `  hh#(@- ( 16wE~wK`n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EQw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2ORiMS#NTNU-O17wE~wKan6bDocument Style=(G>wK@aH*G>FwE~wK\ERF D*  ׃  18wE~wKbn6bTechnical Document StylewK@bH*G>FwE~wK\ES&  . 19wE~wKcn6bTechnical Document StylewK@cH*G>FwE~wK\ET&  . 20wE~wKdn6bTechnical Document StylewK@dH*G>FwE~wK\EU*    2YRVOWPX$QYQ21wE~wKen6bTechnical Document StylewK@eH*G>FwE~wK\EV'   22wE~wKfn6bTechnical Document StylewK@fH*G>FwE~wK\EW&   23wE~wKgn6bTechnical Document StylewK@gH*G>FwE~wK\EX4$     24wE~wKhn6bTechnical Document StylewK@hH*G>FwE~wK\EY&  . 2[ZR[S\Z][25wE~wKin6bTechnical Document StylewK@iH*G>FwE~wK\EZ&  . MACNormaljn6b8 >8=(G>wK@jH*G>FwE~wK\E['     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# .,., US#:}D4P XP#footnote texn6b8 >8=(G>wK@mH*G>FwE~wK\E\'#FxX  P CXP#referenceon6b8 >8=(G>wK@oH*G>FwE~wK\E];#FxX  P CXP#2`^[_m\]`^a_itemizewKpn6b 8 >8=(G>wK@pH*G>FwE~wK\E^* F r#FxX  P CXP#header2wKqn6b.8 >8=(G>wK@qH*G>FwE~wK\E_ `    #FxX  P CXP# CitatorwKrn6bFormat Secretary's Citator Output File>FwE~wK\E`#d6X@7@# XX  FX b#d6X@7@# XX p*  bFormat Downln6bFormat Downloaded DocumentK@uH*G>FwE~wK\EaU XX    X\ #d6X@7@#25cb`cIadaeba127\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fb8@   a227\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FcA@` `  ` ` ` a327\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FdJ` ` @  ` `  a427\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FeS` `  @  2uffgcgdhdiea527\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Ff\` `  @hh# hhh a627\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fge` `  hh#@( hh# a727\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fhn` `  hh#(@- ( a827\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fiw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2RhjpfkqglegmegDocument[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gj` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gk  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gl  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gm  2jnhopipiqjDocument[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gn*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O go  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gp8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gqA@` ` `  ` ` ` 2mrjs{ktlulDocument[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gr0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gsJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gtS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gu\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2pvmwsnx;oy pRight Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gve` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gwn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gxw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gyF    ׃  23szp{}q|r}rTechnical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gz&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g{&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g|*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g}''(   2u~esst.uTechnical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g~&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . 2xurvwrwFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2Agendaa1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. a3Agenda2zKNxKzK|K/"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNR>CxxxxxxxxxxCCjݭR[ӭ⭭RCRnxRjxjxjRxxCCxCxxxxR[Cxxxxjs0sR>nRRR>RRRRRRRRxCjjjjjӜjjjjjRCRCRCRCxxxxxxxxxxjxvxxxxjjjjjjjjjjxxxxxRCRxRRRxxC`RRCxxxxxӭRRR[[[eCnxxxxxx⭭jjjxRx[Rx>xxP+PWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVnxRjxxxxxCMxHMxHRRjjxRRxx듶VVȆRjxH"x𐋂x됐x"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd2؊KKKB K"i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""zn{ {O!&(ԍPetroleum Comms., 22 F.3d at 1173.Y Furthermore, we tentatively conclude that the Exclusive Zone serves the public interest,  X"because it will reduce the administrative burden on the Commission and on Gulf carriers associated with relocation of their waterbased transmitters."  >,))qq "Ԍ X(  X( B. The GMSA Coastal Zone   X( 1. Defining the Boundary  X0  X0  H29. As stated above, we tentatively conclude that coastal waters should be licensed and  X"regulated differently than the rest of the GMSA, because cellular traffic to and from boats is  X_0 X"xheavily concentrated in coastal waters.?$_n{ yO(  ԍPetroleum Comms. Comments at 8. GTE has challenged this conclusion, claiming that it lacks "factual  {O ( X"evidence." See GTE Opposition to Petition to Deny, File No. 00199CLMP91, at 7 (Aug. 29, 1991). We have relied  {Oj ( X"on Coastel's argument that the majority of traffic in the Gulf is in the area closest to the shore. See, Coastel Comments, p.8 n.8. Assuming the establishment of a Coastal Zone serves  X"(the public interest, we propose to consider several criteria when determining the optimal size and parameters for such a zone.  X 0  30. First, we tentatively conclude that the boundary should be far enough from the  X"`shoreline to encompass the majority of coastal boat traffic, so that such traffic is capable of  X"receiving reliable cellular service at all times. Therefore, those boats that wish to remain in  X 0 X"constant contact with people on the shore (e.g., for safety or other reasons), could plan their  X"itineraries in such a way that they stay within the designated Coastal Zone. We request  X"commenters to provide empirical data on the types of boats that travel exclusively in coastal waters and the average number of miles from shore that such boats travel.   XM0  31. Second, we tentatively conclude that the boundary of the Coastal Zone should be  X"Pclose enough to shore so that all areas within the Coastal Zone are capable of receiving service  X"from landbased transmitters when waterbased options are unavailable. This proximity to land  X"is desirable so that, when a waterbased transmitter providing coverage to a particular area is  X0 X"moved (e.g., because an oil platform is removed), a landbased transmitter can be erected to  X"provide reliable coverage to the vacated area. We request information on the approximate  X"hdistance, in kilometers, from shore over which a landbased transmitter is capable of providing  X"reliable coverage. We also seek comment on any other criteria that should be considered when determining the optimal size for a Coastal Zone.  Xi0  832. Considering the above criteria, we tentatively conclude that the territorial waters of  X"`the United States which is a maritime zone that extends approximately twelve nautical miles  X;0 X"8from the U.S. baseline would constitute an appropriate GMSA Coastal Zone.@;n{ yO"(  ԍProclamation No. 5928, 54 Fed. Reg. 777 (1988). One U.S. nautical mile is equal to 6080 feet, or 1.853 kilometers. We have  X"xattached a map in Appendix A depicting coordinates that closely approximate this maritime zone.  X"HWe propose to define the Coastal Zone by a specified set of coordinates (rather than solely by  X"distance) for purposes of administrative efficiency. We believe that specifying coordinates will  X"0assist us in determining whether a particular transmitter or contour is located inside or outside  X"8of the Coastal Zone, and therefore reduce the number of disputes that might otherwise arise. We"  @,))qq "  X"@seek comment on whether all of the area encompassed within the proposed GMSA Coastal Zone  X"his capable of receiving reliable cellular coverage, and on the extent to which coastal boat traffic is encompassed within this zone.  X0  H 33. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether a nonuniform boundary (e.g., a  X"boundary that is closer to the shore in some points and farther out in others) should be adopted  X"xfor the GMSA Coastal Zone. A nonuniform boundary could be established to reflect such  X"factors as the existence of coastal islands, the volume and traffic patterns of leisure boats,  XJ0 X"irregularities in terrain, and restrictions on offshore drilling.XAJn{ yO (ԍ Fla. Stat. ch. 377.242(1)(a)(5)(1995).X For example, the boundary could  X"extend farther from the shore in densely populated areas to accommodate heavy leisure boat  X"@traffic and closer to the shore in areas that consist primarily of undeveloped wetlands. A non X"8uniform boundary could also be established that takes into account the location of existing oil  X"platforms and, hence, potential waterbased transmitter locations. Thus, as illustrated in Appendix  X"xA, the boundary would be closer to the shore off the coast of Texas, where many oil platforms  X"are located, and farther away from the shore off the coast of Florida, where drilling for oil is not  X 0 X"permitted.<B Xn{ {O(ԍ  Id.< We request comment on the coordinates listed in Appendix A, and on the advantages  X" and disadvantages of adopting a uniform versus a nonuniform boundary. We also encourage  X"commenters to submit any alternative coordinates, supported by a rational basis for adopting them.  X60  !34. In addition, we request comment on other factors that should be considered when  X"`determining whether a Coastal Zone should be established and what the boundary of such a zone  X"should be. For instance, the Gulf carriers have acknowledged that their fees are typically higher  X"than fees charged by landbased carriers because of the added expense of operating waterbased  X0 X"Xtransmitters, which are significantly more expensive to access and maintain.vCn{ yOu(ԍRVC Services Comments at 7; Petroleum Comms. Comments at 78,  9.v Therefore, we seek  X"comment on whether the fact that boat travellers would be required to incur higher roaming fees  X"0from carriers licensed to provide service to fixed and temporary fixed platforms, drilling rigs, and  X"0mobile units on board vessels should be a factor to consider in determining the parameters of the Coastal and Exclusive Zones. We invite discussion on our proposals and any alternatives.  XP( 2. Treatment of Incumbents  X"0  "35. An important issue associated with our proposal is its potential impact on existing  X"@sites that have been authorized within the area that is ultimately designated as the GMSA Coastal  X"Zone. Existing sites are of two varieties: (1) waterbased sites operated by Gulf carriers in  X0 X"coastal waters, or (2) de minimis extensions into the GMSA granted to landbased carriers with  X 0 X"service areas that border the GMSA. Prior to the PetroCom decision, we granted numerous de  X!0 X"@minimis extension requests by landbased carriers, primarily in coastal areas that could not be  X"0 X"reached by waterbased transmitters. Under Section 22.911(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, de""zC,))qq""  X0 X"pminimis extensions are incorporated into the CGSA of the cellular carrier that is providing service  X"xto the area once the Phase I buildout period has expired provided that they file a System  X0 X"XInformation Update (SIU) for the market into which it extends.TDn{ yOM(ԍ47 C.F.R.  22.911(c)(2) (1995).T Thus, unless we change the rule  X0 X"for the GMSA, the de minimis extensions into the GMSA that have been granted to landbased carriers would become part of the CGSA of the associated landbased carrier.   Xz0  H#36. We tentatively conclude that the public interest is best served by allowing all water X"based and landbased service area boundaries that extend into the Coastal Zone to be incorporated  X"Xinto the CGSA of the carrier currently providing service, provided that the authorizations were  X50 X"properly granted in accordance with the cellular rules in effect at the time of the grant.E\5Xn{ {O> (  Hԍ Coastal has challenged a number of de minimis extension applications that were granted to landbased  X"`carriers. Because the grant of such applications must be reviewed on a casebycase basis, separate orders shall be  {O (issued with respect to all challenges to de minimis extensions into the GMSA. This  X 0 X"0proposal is consistent with our unserved area rules. It will also enable subscribers to continue  X"pto receive uninterrupted cellular service from their current provider. In addition, we tentatively  X"Xconclude that our proposal serves the public interest, because it will encourage cellular carriers  X"to concentrate resources on providing service to unserved areas rather than constructing additional  X"or redundant transmitters in those areas already receiving service. The remaining unserved areas  X 0 X"8would be subject to the our Phase II Unserved Area rules as described in Section III(B)(5), infra.  X"`We seek comment on our proposal and any alternatives. Specifically, we request commenters  X"to address the advantages and disadvantages of allowing existing authorizations to continue  X"operation versus requiring all carriers to "pull back" any SABs that extend into the Coastal Zone.  XQ(  X:(3. Propagation Formulas  X 0  p$37. Another issue that has received repeated attention is the calculation of service  X"contours that extend partially over water and partially over land. Our goal throughout the  X0 X"Unserved Area proceeding has been to adopt formulas for calculating SABs that reflect reliable  X0 X"Xservice coverage. In the Unserved Area Third Report and Order, we adopted a GMSA formula  X"based on measurement data submitted by PetroCom, because the formula takes into consideration  X"the propagation characteristics over water and, therefore, we believe more accurately represents  X0 X"Xcoverage in the Gulf.F|n{ {O (ԍUnserved Area Third Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd. at 7184,  6. For purposes of administrative efficiency, however, we declined to use  X"0the waterbased formula to determine coverage by landbased systems with contours that extend  XX0 X"partially over water.;GXn{ {O$(ԍId. ; Similarly, we determined that it would be simpler to use the waterbased  X"formula to measure coverage from Gulfcarrier transmitters, even if such contours extend partially  X*0 X"over land.FH*n{ {O{'(ԍId. at  11.F The Gulf carriers maintain, however, that it is inaccurate to measure a contour that"*2 H,))qq@"  X"extends over water by the landbased formula, simply because the transmitter is owned and  X0 X"Hoperated by a landbased carrier.~In{ {Ob(ԍSee, e.g., RVC Services Comments at 4; Petroleum Comms. Comments at 14.~ They argue that, to do so, underestimates the actual size of the extension, because signals are attenuated less over water.  X0  (%38. Because the Coastal Zone would be a unique "hybrid" area that is capable of  X"0receiving service from either a landbased or waterbased carrier, we tentatively conclude that the  X"same formula should apply to all contours within the Coastal Zone, regardless of whether the  X"`transmitter is owned and operated by a landbased or waterbased carrier. We therefore  XH0 X"8reconsider our earlier decision in the Unserved Area Third Report and Order and seek comment  X"(on whether a hybrid formula should be adopted for determining reliable coverage for signals that  X"extend partially over water and partially over land as occurs in the coastal areas of the Gulf of  X"XMexico. In particular, we request commenters to submit specific formulas that would adequately  X"reflect the reliable service area of such combination landwater transmitters. We also seek  X"Xcomment on whether it would be more appropriate to employ a casebycase approach, using the  X 0 X"GMSA formula as a starting point.9J( Zn{ {O(  ԍRochester Telephone Mobile Communications suggested this approach in response to the Unserved Area  {O( X"Further Notice. See Comments of Rochester, Unserved Area Third Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd. at 7184,  10.  {O_( X"0We declined to adopt this approach with respect to nonGulf coastal areas (e.g., the Great Lakes) to avoid  {O)(unnecessary complexity in our application processing. Id. at 7185,  11.9 We invite discussion on these alternatives and on other methods that could be used to calculate such contours.  X{( 4. Placement of Transmitters  XM0  &39. Under our 1986 policy discussed in Section II, supra, applications by Gulf carriers  X"to place transmitters on land without the consent of the landbased carrier were denied. This  X"policy was established in order to give RSA licensees an opportunity to build out their systems  X 0 X"without regard for potential interference from Gulf carriers.K Jn{ {O(  ԍ1986 Unserved Area Order, 1 FCC Rcd. at 511,  5. We used the same method of calculating the Gulf  X"licensees' 39 dBu contours as is used for landbased systems because it was the only method of propagation readily  X"available to the public and standardized throughout the country. However, we recognized that the method probably  {O_( X"underestimated actual signal propagation over extensive water areas.  PetroCom II Id. at 516 n.16. We subsequently changed  {O)(this formula for waterbased carriers. See 47 C.F.R.  22.911(a)(2). Although the Gulf carriers argued  X"that this policy prevented them from providing coverage to some water areas, we concluded that  X0the rights of future RSA licensees should be protected.RL n{ {O"(ԍId. at 513,  1920.R  X0  H'40. Since 1986, cellular service in the Gulf region has matured, and RSA licensees have  X"Pbuilt out their systems to such an extent that nearly the entire coastal area of the Gulf region is  X"within the CGSA of landbased carriers. We therefore propose to abandon the policy of  X"absolutely prohibiting (without consent) landbased sites for the GMSA carriers, and to provide"i L,))qq"  X0 X"xthat only our  SAB extension rulesQMn{ {Oy(ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.912.Q should affect the placement of transmitters, whether land X0 X"based or waterbased. NZn{ yO(  ԍNote that all cellular licensees are entitled to enter into contracts with the licensees of other cellular systems on the same channel block to allow SABs to overlap CGSAs. 47 C.F.R.  22.911(d)(2) (1995).  We tentatively conclude that our proposal serves the public interest,  X"hbecause it removes an obsolete constraint on the placement of transmitters by waterbased  X"carriers on land. Landbased carriers, we note, will still be permitted to erect transmitters on  X"platforms in the water to cover Coastal Zone areas licensed to them, if it is more economical or  X"otherwise efficient to do so. Despite this new flexibility, we reiterate that both types of carriers  Xv0 X"Pwould continue to be subject to our SAB extension rules.  We seek comment on whether this  X"proposal strikes a proper balance between the interests of landbased and waterbased licensees.   X3( 5 . Pending Applications  X ( ` ` Va. Mutually Exclusive Applications  X 0  X (41. As stated above, we propose that portions of the Coastal Zone that do not currently  X 0 X"xreceive cellular service be treated as "unserved areas" for purposes of our cellular rules.PO n{ {O#(ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 22.949.P  X"Because the fiveyear buildout period has expired for all carriers with service areas that abut the  X"proposed Coastal Zone, we tentatively conclude that we should move directly to Phase II  X"(licensing procedures. We therefore propose to accept applications pursuant to our current Phase  X"(II rules. Any Phase II applications previously filed to serve any Coastal Zone areas would be  XM0 X"@dismissed without prejudice, as discussed in further detail in Section III(D)(2), infra, and may  X80 X"hbe resubmitted sixty days after the effective date of this rulemaking. We propose to use  X!0 X"xcompetitive bidding procedures to select from among mutually exclusive applications,P!Dn{ {O(  ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 22.949(b)(2). Phase II application are mutually exclusive only if the proposed CGSA's would overlap. if any,  X 0 X"pursuant to Sections 22.131 and 1.21011.2111 of our rules.jQ n{ yOY(ԍ47 C.F.R.  22.131 (1995), 1.21011.2111 (1994). j We seek comment on our proposal and any alternatives.  X(` ` V b. Construction Requirements  X0  )42. A major goal with respect to our Coastal Zone proposal is to ensure that boats  X"travelling within the Coastal Zone are capable of receiving reliable cellular service. We therefore  X"`tentatively conclude that carriers that obtain licenses to serve areas in the GMSA Coastal Zone  XR0 X"should be required to comply with Section 22.946 of our rules,ORR. n{ yO1'(ԍ 47 C.F.R.  22.946 (1994).O which requires all cellular"R R,))qq"  X0 X"@licensees to construct and to provide service to the licensed area within one y ear.QSn{ yOy(ԍ47 C.F.R.  22.946(b) (1995).Q This proposal is consistent with  X"(our tentative conclusion that the Coastal Zone should be treated in the same manner as terrestrial  X"hunserved areas. We seek comment on the application of our coverage requirements, including  X0any factors that may suggest a more liberal buildout policy for these areas. ` ` Vc. CGSA Boundaries  X_0` ` V  XH0  *43. As discussed in Section III(B)(2), supra, we propose that areas currently receiving  X"service within the Coastal Zone should become part of the associated carrier's CGSA. As a  X"corollary, we propose that the CGSA of a carrier that discontinues service within the Coastal  X"0Zone should be reduced to reflect the actual reliable service area of that carrier. Moreover, we  X"tentatively conclude that the vacated area should be made available for relicensing in accordance  X 0with our Unserved Area rules.  X 0  +44. Again, our proposal is consistent with our tentative conclusion that unserved areas  X"8within the Coastal Zone should be treated in the same manner as landbased unserved areas. We  X"recognize that our proposal may impose some hardship on licensees with transmitters on  X"temporary platforms that are relocated due to no fault of their own; however, we tentatively  X"conclude that the public interest in ensuring reliable cellular service throughout the Coastal Zone  X80 X"`outweighs any hardship these carriers may experience. Furthermore, if we allow all carriers to  X!0 X"place transmitters on shore as proposed in Section III(B)(4), supra, even a Gulf carrier providing  X"(service to the Coastal Zone might be able to provide coverage to the vacated area by placing a  X0transmitter on land. We request comment on our proposal and any alternatives.   X(` ` Vd. Contour Extensions  X0  X0  ,45. As discussed in Section III(C)(3), infra, we propose to treat SAB extensions into the  X"GMSA Exclusive Zone in the same manner as extensions into other cellular service areas  Xm0 X"8pursuant to Section 22.912 of our rules.QTmXn{ yOv(ԍ47 C.F.R.  22.912(a) (1995).Q Specifically, we propose to modify the definition of  X"SAB extensions to include those that cross the boundary between the Coastal Zone and Exclusive Zone. We seek comment on our proposal and any alternative.   X( C. The GMSA Exclusive Zone  X0  X-46. We tentatively conclude that the GMSA Exclusive Zone should consist of the body  X"hof water that extends from the Coastal Zone (proposed parameters are discussed in Section" T,))qq "  X0 X"III(B)(1), supra, to the southernmost boundary of the GMSA.(Un{ {Oy(  PԍSee Presidential Proclamation Number 5030, 48 Fed. Reg. 10605, 1983 WL 85299 (Pres.). In 1983,  X"President Ronald Reagan issued a proclamation defining the Exclusive Economic Zone ("EEZ") as that area which  X"pextends 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. The proclamation further  X"states that the United States has sovereign rights within the EEZ "for the purposes of exploring, exploiting,  X"conserving, and managing natural resources . . . and, jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of the  {Oc(artificial islands, and installations and structures having economic purposes . . ." Id.( Within this area, the Gulf carriers  X"(would be permitted to expand without facing competing applications and without being required  X"to seek approval for new sites before commencing operations. We believe that a GMSA  X"`Exclusive Zone takes into consideration the unique circumstances of the Gulf carriers, who locate  X"ptheir transmitters primarily on oil or gas company platforms that are moved according to business  X0 X"hdecisions made by the companies that own the platforms.]VDn{ {O (ԍSee RVC Services Comments at 7. ] We seek comment on the desirability  X"of establishing such a zone, which would reduce the administrative burden on Gulf carriers that  Xa0are continually required to expand and contract their service areas.  X3( 1. The CGSAs of Gulf Carriers   X 0  .47. We tentatively conclude that the CGSA of the Gulf carriers should be the area for  X"Pwhich they currently provide reliable service as determined by using the method in Section  X 0 X"22.911(a)(2) of our rules.W n{ yO^(ԍ47 C.F.R.  22.911(a)(2) (1995), formerly 47 C.F.R.  22.903(a)(2) (1994) . We propose that the Gulf carriers should be required to notify us of  X"the new boundaries of their CGSA as changes in their service area occur by filing a Form 489  X 0 X"@notification within 15 days of the modification._X f n{ yO(ԍ47 C.F.R. 22.163(e), 22.947(a) (1995)._ We tentatively conclude that, by making the  X0 X"Gulf carriers' CGSA coterminous to their service areas, we will be better able to monitor the areas of the Gulf that are actually receiving cellular service.  XM0  /48. We note that we previously adopted a similar rule earlier Section 22.903(a), which  X"was later redesignated as Section 22.911(a) that made the CGSA of all cellular licensees  X"Pcoterminous with their service areas, and that the Court of Appeals instructed us to vacate this  X0 X" rule insofar as it applies to Gulf licensees.YY n{ {O (ԍPetroleum Comms., 22 F.3d at 1173.Y Specifically the court was concerned that Gulf  X0 X"service areas should not be "frozen" at their current dimensions.:Z n{ {O*#(ԍId.: In its opinion, the Court of Appeals stated that:  xXWe do not foreclose the possibility that the Commission may develop a convincing  xrationale for applying a uniform standard to waterbased and landbased licensees.  xWe state simply that, after considering the record before us, we remain"~Z,))qq"  xunpersuaded that the Commission has given due weight to factors bearing sharply  X0on the wisdom or fairness of such a uniform standard.:[n{ {Ob(ԍId.:   X0  049. Our current proposal differs significantly from the way that Section 22.903(a) was  X"initially applied to Gulf carriers before that rule was vacated. Under the new proposal, the  X"information reported to the Commission would be used solely for monitoring purposes. Thus,  X"@the Gulf carriers would have much more flexibility than before, because they would be permitted  X"to expand and contract their systems within the GMSA Exclusive Zone without prior Commission  X"8approval. The Gulf carriers would only be required to notify the Commission of new boundaries  X"instead of filing major applications. Under the vacated rule, the Gulf carriers would not have  X 0 X"been permitted to expand or change beyond their CGSA (i.e., actual service area) without facing  X"competing applications. We tentatively conclude that our current proposal addresses the court's  X"concerns, because it takes into account the unique operating conditions of a waterbased system  X"(by providing the Gulf carriers with much more flexibility. We request comment on our proposal and any alternatives.  X( 3. Extensions into the GMSA Exclusive Zone  X{(  Xd0   150. We tentatively conclude that de minimis extensions into unserved areas in the GMSA  X"Exclusive Zone should be permitted, because carriers licensed to cover the GMSA Coastal Zone  X"(may need to extend into the GMSA Exclusive Zone by a small amount in order to provide  X"preliable coverage to the area for which they have received a license. To protect the interests of  X 0 X"`the GMSA Exclusive Zone licensees, however, we propose that all de minimis extensions into  X0 X"the Exclusive Zone must meet the criteria set forth in Section 22.912(a) of our rules.K\Zn{ yO(ԍ 47 C.F.R.  22.912(a).K Gulf  X"carriers will not be harmed by such extensions, because no incursions into their CGSAs will be permitted without their consent.   X0  251. Although we tentatively conclude that only the Gulf carriers should have exclusive  X"`rights to expand or relocate within the GMSA Exclusive Zone, we propose that contract  X"Pextensions should be permitted if consent is obtained from the appropriate Gulf carrier. Thus,  X"if a Gulf carrier does not intend to serve a portion of the GMSA Exclusive Zone, the Gulf carrier  X"Xwould be permitted to enter into a contract with another carrier that desires to provide such  X&0service.a]&n{ {O"(ԍSee, 47 C.F.R.  22.912(b) and (c).a We request discussion on our proposal.  X( D. Licensing Issues  X ( 1. Interim Licensing "!|],))qq!"Ԍ X0  H352. While this rulemaking proceeding is pending, we propose to continue to hold all  X0 X"applications by landbased carriers for extensions, including de minimis extensions, into the GMSA.  X( 2. Pending Applications  X0  Xx(` ` V a. Phase II Applications  XJ0  h453. As discussed in Section II(D), supra, many applicants filed Phase II applications  X"pursuant to our December 23, 1992, public notice announcing dates for filing unserved area  X"papplications for the GMSA. Because the court instructed us to vacate Section 22.903(a) of our  X"8rules insofar as it applies to Gulf licensees which reinstated the entire GMSA as Coastal CGSA  X"0and the western portion as PetroCom's CGSA we have placed all Phase II applications on hold pending reconsideration of our policies in the Gulf.  X 0  554. Once final rules are adopted, we propose to dismiss without prejudice all pending  X"Phase II applications to serve areas within the Coastal Zone. On the date that the new rules are  X"adopted, applicants will be permitted to file (or resubmit if appropriate) applications to serve  X"Xareas within the newly established GMSA Coastal Zone. Any mutually exclusive applications  XO0 X"(received within the requisite thirtyday notice and cutoff period would be subject to competitive  X80bidding procedures under Section 22.131 of our rules.^8n{ {O(  ԍPhase II rules provide that applications are mutually exclusive if timely filed and CGSAs overlap. See 47 C.F.R. 22.949(b)(2).  X!(   X 0` ` Vb. Applications for De Minimis Extensions into the Gulf  X0  X0  655. As discussed in Section III(B)(5), supra, we propose to dismiss all pending  X0 X"applications for de minimis extensions into the GMSA as of the effective date of the final rules  X"Padopted in this proceeding. With few exceptions, all landbased carrier applications for sites with  X"Hcontours that extend into the GMSA, and all waterbased carrier applications for sites that extend  X"(onto land, have been the subject of petitions to deny and applications for review. In addition,  Xn0 X"all applications filed by landbased carriers for de minimis extensions into the GMSA have been  X"on hold since the court vacated Section 22.903(a) of our rules insofar as it applies to Gulf  X"carriers. We have not been able to grant these applications until we determined the boundary of the Gulf carriers' CGSA.  X0  756. Because we are reconsidering our policies in the Gulf, and in the interest of avoiding  X"the appearance of prejudging the issues raised therein, we tentatively conclude that it would be  X 0 X"inequitable to grant pending applications for de minimis extensions into the GMSA that have been  X"submitted by landbased carriers. We also tentatively conclude that no injustice will result from  X"the dismissal of these applications, because the landbased carriers will have the opportunity to  X"resubmit unserved area applications to provide service to these areas, as discussed further in  Xu$0Section III(B)(5), supra. We seek comment on our proposal and any alternatives."u$"^,))qqX$"Ԍ X(ԙ ` ` Vc. Applications filed by Gulf Carriers for LandBased Transmitters  X0  X0  857.  In conformance with the policies outlined in Section III(B)(4), supra, we have  X"continued to deny all applications submitted by Gulf carriers to place transmitters on land without  X"the landbased carrier's consent. Now pending before us are 11 Applications for Review filed  X"by Coastel requesting that the Commission reconsider its denial of Coastel's applications for land X"Xbased facilities. Separate orders will be drafted for each Application for Review, which will be  Xa0released simultaneously with the final Order in this rulemaking proceeding.  XL0  X5( E. Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the Gulf of Mexico  X 0  X 0  h958. In addition to our proposals for cellular service in the Gulf, we seek comment on  X"Hwhether to authorize other CMRS providers to provide service in the Gulf. Although we have  X" previously licensed some SMR facilities in the Gulf on a sitebysite basis, we have not extended  X"our geographic area licensing rules in services such as PCS and SMR to Gulf operations. We  X"therefore request comment on whether we should adopt licensing and operational rules for noncellular CMRS in the Gulf region.  Xf0 1. PCS   X80  :59. Broadband PCS service areas are licensed as Major Trading Areas ("MTAs") and  X!0 X"Basic Trading Areas ("BTAs").Y_!n{ {O(ԍSee, 47 C.F.R.  24.202 (1995).Y These MTAs and BTAs are based on the Rand McNally  X 0 X"Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, and represent an organization of the 50  X0 X"States and the District of Columbia.:`Zn{ {O(ԍId.: Certain U.S. Territories, not included in this organization,  X0 X"are licensed as MTAlike and BTAlike areas.:an{ {O{(ԍId.: Construction requirements for broadband PCS  X"@licensees are based on coverage of population over a five or ten year period, depending on the  X0 X"size of the spectrum block.Yb~n{ {O(ԍSee, 47 C.F.R.  24.203 (1995).Y Narrowband PCS service areas are licensed as nationwide and  X0 X"regional MTAs and BTAs.Ycn{ {OZ!(ԍSee, 47 C.F.R.  24.102 (1995).Y Construction requirements for narrowband PCS differ for  X"8nationwide and regional licensees, but may be satisfied by meeting either geographic or  Xk0population based coverage requirements over a tenyear period.Tdkn{ {O$(ԍSee, 47 C.F.R. 24.103 (1995).T    ;60. At this point, no provision has been made for the licensing of broadband or  X"narrowband PCS in the Gulf. We request comment on whether sufficient demand exists to justify"&4 d,))qqh"  X"Pan extension of broadband and narrowband PCS services into the Gulf of Mexico. Should  X"sufficient demand exist to warrant a consideration of expanding PCS into the Gulf, we would  X"request comment on how potential service areas should be defined. Such comments should  X"Xaddress whether the Gulf should be defined as an MTA or BTA, and whether the twozone  X0 X"approach discussed in this Second Further Notice should be extended to PCS. Commenters  X"should also address service and coverage requirements, as well as interference standards, that recognize the differences between terrestrial PCS and potential waterbased systems.  XJ(X 2. SMR (#   <61. Historically, we have licensed SMR on a sitebysite basis, and there are SMR  X"licensees currently operating at individually licensed sites in the Gulf. We have also recently  X"adopted geographical area licensing rules for 900 MHz SMR and have adopted and proposed  X"(rules for geographic licensing of 800 MHz SMR. Our 900 MHz SMR rules divide the 896 X"`901/935940 MHz band into twenty 10channel blocks in each of 51 service areas based on Major  X 0 X"Trading Areas ("MTAs").e n{ {O"(  ԍSee In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of  X" 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896901 MHz and the 935940 MHz Bands Allotted to the  X"Specialized Mobile Radio Pool, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding,  {O|( X"0Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act, PR Docket No. 89553, Second Order on  {OF(Reconsideration and Seventh Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2639 (1995). ğ In the 800 MHz band (816821/861866 MHz) we have adopted  X"geographic licensing based on U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis  X"Economic Areas ("EAs") for the upper 200 channels, and have proposed similar licensing rules  Xd0 X"for the remaining SMR channels.0f&d~n{ {O(  ԍSee In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development  X" of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz frequency Band, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications  {O%( X"Act, regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, PR Docket No. 93144, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and  {O(Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd. 1463, 1468,  1 (1995).0 However, we have not proposed or adopted rules for geographic area licensing in the Gulf in either the 800 MHz or 900 MHz SMR proceedings.   =62. We request comment on whether we should extend our geographic area licensing of  X"800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR to the Gulf of Mexico. If it is determined that geographic area  X"Xlicensing is warranted, we seek comment on how Gulf service areas should be defined, and  X0 X"whether the twozone approach discussed in this Second Further Notice should be extended to  X"potential SMR licensees. In addition, we seek comment on service and coverage requirements,  X"pas well as interference standards, that will address the unique conditions of providing waterbased  X"service in the Gulf of Mexico. Finally, we note that on February 21, 1997, we received a petition  X"(for rulemaking on behalf of PetroCom seeking an amendment to Part 90 of the Commission's  X"rules to provide cochannel interference protection for SMR licenses operating in or near the  XR0 X"`Gulf.gRl n{ {Oo&(  ԍSee Letter from Kenneth W. Burnley, Myers Keller Communications Law Group, to David Furth, FCC, dated February 21, 1997. Specifically, PetroCom argues that SMR providers currently operating in the Gulf will  X"receive interference from cochannel systems under the current rules, which are designed to deal"; g,))qqH"  X"with terrestrial rather than overwater operation. Because PetroCom's petition raises issues  X"relevant to the instant rulemaking, we incorporate it into the record of this proceeding. We seek  X"xcomment on whether we should amend our interference standards to protect Gulf SMR operators against interference.   X0 3. Other Services  Xv0  X_0  >63. We further request comment on licensing possibilities for other CMRS services in  X"the Gulf of Mexico. Proposals for the licensing of additional services in the Gulf should include:  X"8an analysis of the demand for such service, detailed definitions of potential Gulf service areas,  X"service and coverage requirements, and interference standards that will adequately protect landbased service providers.  X 0` ` VT IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ă  X 0   X ( A. Regulatory Flexibility Act   ?64. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has  X"prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the expected impact on small  XK0 X" entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule  X60 X"(Making. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as  X!0 X"responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second Further  X 0 X" Notice of Proposed Rule Making provided above in section V(D). The Secretary shall send a  X0 X"copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.   X0  H@65. Reason for Action: In order to reexamine our cellular service rules as they apply  X"8to the Gulf of Mexico Service Area ("GMSA") we initiated this rulemaking proceeding. Since  X"the establishment of the GMSA, conflict has arisen between the GMSA licensees, and the land X"based cellular service providers in the Gulf of Mexico Region over the provision of service to  X"@coastal areas. Further, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit  X"Phas instructed us to reexamine certain of our cellular licensing policies insofar as they apply to  X*0GMSA licensees.th*n{ {O(ԍPetroleum Comms., Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1994).t  X0  A66. Objectives: Our objectives in this rulemaking proceeding are (1) to establish  X"comprehensive rules that will reduce conflict between GMSA licensees and landbased cellular  X"@service providers, (2) provide regulatory flexibility, to GMSA licensees, that recognizes the  X"inherent transitory nature of waterbased cellular cites, and (3) award licenses so as to maximize the use of spectrum in, and provide high quality service to, highly traveled coastal waters. "#Zh,))qq#"Ԍ X0  8B67. Legal Basis: The proposed action is authorized under the Communications Act,  X"Sections 4(i), 7, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 332, as amended.  X0  `C68. Description of and, Number of, Small Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule:  X0 X"X The rule changes proposed in this proceeding will affect all small businesses which provide  X"cellular service in the GMSA or coastal areas. The Commission will be required, in its Final  X" Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to estimate the number of small entities to which the rule will  X"Xapply, provide a description of such entities, and assess the impact of the rule on such entities.  X"To assist in this analysis, commenters are requested to provide information regarding how many  X 0 X"0total entities, existing and potential, will be affected by the rules proposed in this Second Further  X 0 X"8Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We particularly seek estimates of the number of entities,  X"hexisting and potential, that will be considered small businesses. The definition of "small  X 0 X"Pbusiness" approved by the Small Business Administration, and used in the PCS CBlock auction,  X 0 X"is a firm that has had revenues of less than $40 million in each of the last three calendar years.i n{ {O;(  ԍSee Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No.  {O(93253, Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5608,  175 (1994).  X"We seek comment as to whether it would be appropriate to extend this definition to this context.  X"We further request that each commenter identify whether it is a small business under this  X}0 X"definition. If the commenter is a subsidiary of another entity, this information should be provided for both subsidiary and the parent entity.  X80  D69. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: This  X!0information is supplied in the Paper Work reduction Act, infra.  X0E70. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules: None.  X0  F71. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities Consistent  X0 X"`with the Stated Objectives: The objective of the current rulemaking proceeding is to improve  X"the quality of service provided in the Gulf region, and to establish rules that accurately reflect  X"the realities of both waterbased and landbased service providers. To the extent that this  X"@rulemaking modifies existing regulations, it is our objective to communicate a benefit to all  X"service providers in the Gulf region without regard to the size of the entity. The impact on small  X=0 X"entities in the proposals in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the opportunity  X"pto provide service in accordance with a regulatory framework that accurately reflects the  X"geographic and demographic realities of the region. Given the low burden of compliance,  X"reporting, and performance requirements for the provision of cellular service, no alternatives to  X0 X"these requirements were deemed necessary for small entities. This Second Further Notice of  X 0 X"hProposed Rulemaking solicits comment on the variety of alternatives discussed herein, any significant alternatives submitted in the comments will be considered.   X#( B. Paperwork Reduction Act  Xt$0 "t$$i,))qq$"Ԍ  G72. The rule changes contained herein were analyzed with respect to the Paperwork  X"Reduction Act of 1980 and were found to impose no new or modified information collection  X"requirement on the public. Implementation of any new or modified requirement will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget, as prescribed by the Act.  X(  X(C. Ex Parte Rules NonRestricted Proceeding  Xv0  X_0  H73. This is a nonrestricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte  X"presentations are permitted except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are  X30disclosed as provided in Commission rules.yj3n{ {O (ԍSee generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a) (1994).y  X ( D. Comment Period  X 0  h I74. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the  X"hCommission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before June 2, 1997, and reply  X 0 X"comments on or before July 2, 1997.jeXf Zn{ yO(ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419 (1994).X To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an  X"original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you  X"0want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original  X"8plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary,  X"Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments  X"hwill be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Reference Center of  X"the Federal Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.  X"20554. A copy of all comments should also be filed with the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, (202) 8573800.  X(  X(E. Authority  X0  @J75.  The proposed action is authorized under the Communications Act, Sections 4(i), 7,  X"303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 332, as amended. "Pf,))qqX"  X( F. Ordering Clause    K76. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 15 of the Communications  X"Act of 1934, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  151155, a NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING is hereby ADOPTED.   L77. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this SECOND  X"8FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, including the regulatory flexibility  X"pcertification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in  X10accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  et seq. (1981).  X (  X (G. Further Information   (M78. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Zenji Nakazawa, Legal Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 4180620. ` ` V FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  XM0 ` ` V ` ` V William F. Caton  X0` ` V Acting Secretary"f,))qq"  X( APPENDIX A  Final Rules   X0 Part 22 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: N1.ؠThe authority citation for Part 22 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1083, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154 and 303. N2.ؠSection 22.99 is amended by adding definitions, inserted in proper positions to maintain alphabetical order, for the following terms:  X ( 22.99 Definitions. *****  Xy0GMSA Coastal Zone. The geographical area within the Gulf of Mexico Service Area that lies between the coast line and a line defined by Great Circle arcs connecting the following points (geographical coordinates listed as North Latitude, West Longitude) consecutively in the order listed:  X0(#m V?k(#҇X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: