[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68418-68424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32910]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 65
[CC Docket No. 98-177; FCC 98-238]
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Petition for Section 11 Biennial
Review.
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 8, 1998, SBC Communications (``SBC'') filed a petition
for rulemaking in which SBC presents a number of proposals designed to
reduce or eliminate Commission regulations as part of the 1998 biennial
review. The attached Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') commences
a biennial review proceeding to seek comment on SBC's proposals to
reduce or eliminate regulations pertaining to incumbent local exchange
carriers (``LECs''). Specifically, the NPRM seeks comments on SBC's
proposals to revise the Commission's rate of return represcription
rules, to eliminate the requirement to use the lead lag study
methodology for calculating the cash working capital of large incumbent
LECs, to detariff certain services subject to competition, to further
streamline the cost allocation manual filing procedures, and to
simplify the Commission's wireless radio rules. The NPRM declines to
seek comment on the remaining SBC proposals because such proposals
either involve rules promulgated as a result of the 1996 Act of the
proposals or involve rules or
[[Page 68419]]
proposals that are already the subject of biennial review or other
proceedings.
DATES: Submit comments on or before January 11, 1999.
Submit reply comments on or before January 25, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445-12th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Dale, Common Carrier Bureau,
Accounting Safeguards Division, (202) 418-2260, or via E-mail to
``[email protected]''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Released: November 24, 1998
1. In this NPRM we sought comments on several proposals submitted
by SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) in a recently filed Petition for
Section 11 Biennial Review. Section 11 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the Act), instructs the Commission, in every even-
numbered year beginning in 1998, to ``review all regulations issued
under this Act in effect at the time of the review that apply to the
operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications
service'' and to ``determine whether any such regulation is no longer
necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic
competition between providers of such service.'' (See 47 U.S.C.
161(a)). Section 11 further instructs the Commission to ``repeal or
modify any regulation it determines to be no longer necessary in the
public interest.'' (See 47 U.S.C. 161(b)). In addition, section 202(h)
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act) requires the
Commission to review its broadcast ownership rules biennially as part
of the review conducted pursuant to section 11. (See Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996)). Specifically,
section 202(h) of the Act provides that the Commission ``shall review .
. . all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its regulatory
reform review under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934 and
shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public
interest as the result of competition. The Commission shall repeal or
modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public
interest.'' (See Section 202(h)) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
2. On November 18, 1997, the Chairman announced that the Commission
was commencing the 1998 biennial regulatory review of
telecommunications regulations and broadcast ownership regulations,
earlier than required. In addition, the announcement indicated that the
scope of the first biennial regulatory review would be broader than
statutorily required. Specifically, the announcement indicated that the
first biennial review presented a key opportunity for serious ``top-to-
bottom'' examination of the Commission's rules and procedures to
determine which of them need to be revised or eliminated. (See FCC News
Release, ``1998 Biennial Review of FCC Regulations Begun Early'' (Nov.
18, 1997)). Commission staff then undertook a broad review of
Commission regulations. A two-fold approach was followed: (1) each of
the operating Bureaus and the Office of Engineering and Technology
(OET) conducted a review of rules under its jurisdiction; and (2) a
team made up of representatives of the Office of Plans and Policy
(OPP), the Chief Economist and his staff and the Competition Division
of the Office of General Counsel (OGC) conducted a parallel review of
Commission rules on a cross-cutting basis. In order to maximize the
universe of rules that might be candidates for modification or
elimination, the staff did not focus simply on the statutory standard
of whether ``meaningful economic competition'' justified changes in the
rules. Thus, for example, despite the lack of the development of such
competition in the local exchange market, the staff nevertheless
included rules relating to local exchange carriers as within the scope
of the review.
As part of this process, the staff sought and received substantial
public input. Specifically, beginning on December 17, 1997 and
continuing through January 30, 1998, each of the five operating
bureaus, together with OGC, hosted a series of public forums to receive
ideas from the public regarding Commission regulations that are
potential candidates for repeal or modification during the first
biennial regulatory review conducted pursuant to section 11 of the Act.
In addition, staff from the Bureaus and OGC attended a series of five
meetings held by practice groups of the Federal Communications Bar
Association (FCBA), also to receive ideas about biennial review
candidates. The staff also sought input from the Commissioners.
Following this broad review of Commission regulations, on February 5,
1998, the Commission staff released a list of 31 proceedings it
proposed the Commission initiate as part of the 1998 biennial
regulatory review. (See February 5 News Release)). The list of proposed
rulemaking and notice of inquiry proceedings proposed examining a wide
variety of subsets of Commission's rules. Nearly two-thirds of the
proposed proceedings involved common carriers, and the proceedings
covered hundreds of individual rules. The staff also noted that the
Commission had many ongoing proceedings consistent with the
deregulatory and streamlining goals of section 11.
3. As the News Release specifically noted, the list of proposed
biennial review proceedings was a working document that reflected the
Commission staff's plans. The staff established an electronic mailbox
<[email protected]> specifically for the purpose of soliciting ongoing
deregulatory input from the public. In this regard, the process of
determining which rules are likely candidates for modification or
streamlining has been ongoing, and consequently the list of 31
proceedings proposed by the Commission staff was neither exhaustive nor
static. We disagree with SBC that this process, including the
proceedings that we have initiated and will initiate, does not comply
with the statutory requirements. It appears that SBC may be suggesting
that the Commission should instead have initiated a single mega-
rulemaking proceeding to review every rule relating to common carriers
(including wireline, wireless and international). We believe such a
mega-proceeding is not required by statute, would be unworkable, and
would result in less meaningful deregulation and streamlining than the
approach the Commission is taking. The statute does not require a
rulemaking determination by the Commission with respect to every rule
that continues to serve the public interest and such an approach would
inevitably fall under its own weight, thereby undermining the goal of
section 11--to identify rules that no longer serve the public interest
and modify or eliminate them.
We ask for comment on the following SBC proposals:
4. Rate-of-Return Prescription (47 CFR 65.101). SBC argues that
section 65.101 et seq. of our regulations, which trigger an inquiry
into whether a revised rate-of-return prescription is needed once
certain financial triggers are met, are a ``vestige of rate of return
regulation which is no longer needed under price cap regulation.'' We
seek comment on SBC's statement and whether these rules continue to
serve any purpose for carriers subject to price cap regulation.
5. Cash Working Capital Studies (47 CFR 65.820(d)). SBC asserts
that the lead-lag study method required for Class A carriers to
calculate the working capital element of the interstate rate base is an
overly burdensome endeavor for calculating what ``traditionally
[[Page 68420]]
makes up far less than 1% of the total rate base.'' As detailed in
Exhibit A of the SBC Petition, SBC recommends that carriers be given
the option of including a cash working capital allowance in the rate
base or else foregoing recovery. SBC further proposes that to the
extent carriers elect an allowance for cash working capital, carriers
should be allowed to freeze the amount of cash working capital or else
choose from three methods of calculating the cash working capital
allowance: the lead-lag study method currently required by Commission
regulations; the balance sheet method; or the 45-day formula method
detailed in Exhibit A to the SBC petition. We seek comment on SBC
proposals to reduce the burdens currently imposed on Class A carriers
by the lead-lag studies.
6. Detariffing of Services Subject to Competition. SBC states that
certain local exchange carrier (LEC) services are competitive and that
the Commission should detariff these services. Specifically, SBC
indicates its belief that special access services, direct trunked
transport, operator services, directory assistance and interexchange
services are competitive and should be detariffed for all carriers. We
seek comment on SBC's conclusions about competition for these services
and whether detariffing would be appropriate as an exercise of our
section 10 forbearance authority. (See 47 U.S.C. 160). Commenters
supporting detariffing should indicate whether they favor permissive
detariffing or complete detariffing.
7. Part 64 Cost Allocation Manual (CAM) Simplification. SBC asserts
that the Part 64 CAM requirements are too complex. SBC further argues
that price cap regulation adequately guards against ratepayer
subsidization of nonregulated activities, which the CAM requirements
originally were designed to protect against. Exhibit D to the SBC
Petition contains detailed suggestions for how many of the current CAM
requirements could be simplified. We seek comment on these
recommendations to simplify the CAM process in a manner consistent with
its underlying purposes of discouraging, and facilitating detection of,
improper cost allocations and cross-subsidization. (See Accounting
Safeguards Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order,
12 FCC Rcd 2993, paras. 13, 24, 50 (1996) (Accounting Safeguards
Order), recon. pending.
8. We note that some of SBC's CAM simplification proposals are
already the subject of pending biennial review proceedings or other
Commission proceedings. In the Accounting Reductions NPRM, we proposed
streamlining certain CAM filing and CAM audit requirements,
particularly with respect to mid-size incumbent local exchange
carriers. In the Accounting Reductions NPRM, we proposed to establish
less burdensome CAM procedures for the mid-sized incumbent LECs and to
reduce the frequency with which independent audits of the cost
allocations based upon CAMs are required. In addition, we note that the
Accounting Safeguards Division of the Common Carrier Bureau recently
streamlined certain CAM filing procedures with respect to an incumbent
local exchange carrier's affiliate transactions. Finally, we note that
SBC's proposal regarding cost allocation procedures for incidental
interLATA services is an issue raised by SBC in its Petition for
Reconsideration of the Accounting Safeguards Order. Because we plan to
address the resolution of these proposals in existing proceedings,
commenters should avoid submitting redundant comments in this docket.
9. Affiliate Transaction Rules. SBC suggests that, like the Part 64
CAM process, the Commission should be able to simplify its affiliate
transactions rules. We note that the two issues raised by SBC are
issues raised by either SBC or other parties in Petitions for
Reconsideration of the Accounting Safeguards Order. Without seeking
comment on the two issues raised by SBC, we seek general comments on
other ways the affiliate transactions rules might be simplified in a
manner consistent with the underlying purposes of discouraging, and
facilitating detection of, improper cost allocations and cross-
subsidization.
10. Wireless Radio Rules. SBC states that process and procedure
rules for wireless radio services are located in various rule parts. It
suggests that ``[t]o ensure consistent application and understanding of
the rules related to the provision of wireless services, the rules must
be streamlined and/or eliminated as appropriate to remove
duplication.'' The Commission has already initiated a proceeding to
substantially streamline and consolidate these regulations to
facilitate conversion to the universal licensing system. The goals of
that proceeding are ``to establish a simplified set of rules that (1)
minimizes filing requirements as much as possible; (2) eliminates
redundant, inconsistent, or unnecessary submission requirements; and
(3) assures ongoing collection of reliable licensing and ownership
data.'' We believe that the universal licensing system proceeding
addresses many of the issues that SBC raises in its petition. We also
note that the Commission has recently requested comments on whether
there are any regulations of wireless telecommunications carriers from
which we should forbear under section 10 of the 1996 Act. Because we
want to ensure that we receive as full a record as possible, and as
many suggestions as possible, we therefore seek comment on SBC's
general proposals that may go beyond the proposed changes set out in
these proceedings, including specific suggestions for rule changes.
11. Many additional SBC proposals mirror the staff's list of
proposed biennial review proceedings. The Commission has already
initiated proceedings on these matters, or will do so in the near
future. Accordingly, we do not seek comment on those matters here. The
proposals contained in the SBC Petition that track the staff's
proposals have been incorporated by reference into each of the recently
released notices. Other biennial review proposals advocated by SBC
involve regulations only recently adopted as part of the Commission's
implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. With
implementation just recently underway, and in some instances appellate
review still pending, we believe it premature to modify or eliminate
these rules as part of the 1998 biennial review. Yet another subset of
biennial review proposals included in the SBC Petition involves issues
that are already the subject of ongoing proceedings, either before the
Commission or the courts. We think it more appropriate to handle these
proposals in the context of such existing proceedings. These various
proposals may be further considered at an appropriate time in the
future. Finally, we do not request comment on SBC's suggestion that we
reduce our enforcement efforts with respect to those rules that do
remain on the books and on its request that we use the biennial review
to increase regulation of others. We believe neither of these proposals
is consistent with the thrust of section 11. Specifically, we do not
believe it is appropriate that section 11 be used as a shield for
carriers to avoid the consequences of violations of the Communications
Act or Commission rules, or as a sword to impose new regulatory burdens
on others.
12. By this NPRM, we solicit comment on those proposals submitted
by SBC so identified above. Commenters should frame their discussion
and analysis in a manner consistent with the analytical framework set
forth by Congress in section 11 of the Act. In addition to our more
specific requests for comment above, we invite
[[Page 68421]]
commenters to submit information on the costs and benefits of the rules
at issue in this proceeding and of our proposed modifications. We also
ask commenters to provide data and evidence to support their positions
so as to facilitate objective analysis of the issues raised.
13. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's revised ex parte rules,
which became effective June 2, 1997. See Amendment of 47 CFR 1.1200 et
seq. Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission Proceedings, GC
Docket No. 95-21, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 7348, 7356-57, para. 27
(citing 47 CFR 1.1204(b)(1)). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations
must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two
sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally
required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Other rules pertaining
to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) as
well.
14. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains either a proposed
or modified information collection. As part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on
the information collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 114-13. Public and agency
comments are due at the same times as other comments on this NPRM; OMB
comments are due 60 days from the date of publication of this NPRM in
the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
15. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as ``small business
concern'' under the Small Business Act (SBA), which defines ``small
business concern'' as ``one which is independently owned and operated
and which is not dominant in its field of operation.'' Section 121.201
of the SBA regulations defines small telecommunications entities in SIC
Code 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) as any
entity with fewer than 1,500 employees at the holding company level.
Some entities employing fewer than 1,500 employees at the holding
company level may be affected by SBC's proposals. We, however, do not
consider such entities to be ``small entities'' under the RFA because
they are either affiliates of large corporations or dominant in their
field of operations. Therefore, we do not believe that the proposed
rules will affect a substantial number of small entities that are
incumbent local exchange carriers.
16. The rule changes proposed in the NPRM, if adopted, will affect
all small businesses filing new wireless license applications or
modifying or renewing an existing wireless license. To assist the
Commission in analyzing the total number of affected small entities,
commenters are requested to provide estimates of the number of small
entities who will be affected by the rules proposed in this NPRM. The
Commission estimates the following number of small entities that
provide wireless telecommunications service may be affected by the
proposed rule changes.
(a) Cellular Radiotelephone Service
The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to cellular licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition
of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to
radiotelephone companies. This definition provides that a small entity
is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. The
size data provided by the SBA does not enable us to make a meaningful
estimate of the number of cellular providers which are small entities
because it combines all radiotelephone companies with 1000 or more
employees. The 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and
Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census, is the most recent
information available. This document shows that only twelve
radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated
during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if all twelve
of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular
carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. The
Commission assumes, for purposes this IRFA, that all of the current
cellular licensees are small entities, as that term is defined by the
SBA. In addition, the Commission notes that there are 1,758 cellular
licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several licenses. The
most reliable source of information regarding the number of cellular
service providers nationwide appears to be data the Commission
publishes annually in its Telecommunications Industry Revenue report,
regarding the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). The report places
cellular licensees and Personal Communications Service (PCS) licensees
in one group. According to the data released in November, 1997, there
are 804 companies reporting that they engage in cellular or PCS
service. It seems certain that some of these carriers are not
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees;
however, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater
precision the number of cellular service carriers qualifying as small
business concerns under the SBA's definition. For purposes of this
IRFA, the Commission estimates that there are fewer than 804 small
cellular service carriers.
(b) Broadband and Narrowband PCS
Broadband PCS. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F. The Commission has defined
``small entity'' in the auctions for Blocks C and F as a firm that had
average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous
calendar years. (See 47 CFR 24.720(b)(1)). This definition of ``small
entity'' in the context of broadband PCS auctions has been approved by
the SBA. The Commission has auctioned broadband PCS licenses in blocks
A through F. Of the qualified bidders in the C and F block auctions,
all were entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs was defined for these auctions as
entities, together with affiliates, having gross revenues of less than
$125 million and total assets of less than $500 million at the time the
FCC Form 175 application was filed. Ninety bidders, including C block
reauction winners, won 493 C block licenses and 88 bidders won 491 F
block licenses. For purposes of this IRFA, the Commission assumes that
all of the 90 C block broadband PCS licensees and 88 F block broadband
PCS
[[Page 68422]]
licensees, a total of 178 licensees, are small entities.
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 in the auctions. 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, the Commission assumes, for purposes
of this IRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small
entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.
(c) 220 MHz Radio Services
Since the Commission has not yet defined a small business with
respect to 220 MHz radio services, it will utilize the SBA definition
applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no
more than 1,500 persons. With respect to the 220 MHz services, the
Commission has proposed a two-tiered definition of small business for
purposes of auctions: (1) for Economic Area (EA) licensees, a firm with
average annual gross revenues of not more than $6 million for the
preceding three years; and (2) for regional and nationwide licensees, a
firm with average annual gross revenues of not more than $15 million
for the preceding three years. Given that nearly all radiotelephone
companies employ no more than 1,500 employees, for purposes of this
IRFA the Commission will consider the approximately 3,800 incumbent
licensees as small businesses under the SBA definition.
(d) Paging
The Commission has proposed a two-tier definition of small
businesses in the context of auctioning geographic area paging licenses
in the Common Carrier Paging and exclusive Private Carrier Paging
services. Under the proposal, 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. Since
the SBA has not yet approved this definition for paging services, the
Commission will utilize the SBA 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 Telecommunications
Industry Revenue data, there were 172 ``paging and other mobile''
carriers reporting that they engage in these services. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that there are fewer than 172 small paging
carriers. The Commission estimates that the majority of private and
common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under
the SBA definition.
(e) Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service
The Commission has not adopted a definition of small business
specific to the Air-Ground radiotelephone service. Accordingly, the
Commission will use the SBA definition applicable to radiotelephone
companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There
are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground radiotelephone
service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify
as small entities under the SBA definition.
(f) Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
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.
This regulation defining ``small entity'' in the context of 900 MHz SMR
has been approved by the SBA. The Commission does not know how many
firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant
to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these
providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm
has over $15 million in revenues. The Commission assumes for purposes
of this IRFA that all of the remaining existing extended implementation
authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by
the SBA. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses
in the 900 MHz SMR band, and recently completed an auction for
geographic area 800 MHz SMR licenses. There were 60 winning bidders who
qualified as small entities in the 900 MHz auction. In the recently
concluded 800 MHz SMR auction there were 524 licenses won by winning
bidders, of which 38 licenses were won by small or very small entities.
(g) Private Land Mobile Radio Services (PLMR)
PLMR systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial,
business, land transportation, and public safety activities. The
Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to PLMR licensees due to the vast array of PLMR
users. 23. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee is a small
business as defined by the SBA, each licensee would need to be
evaluated within its own business area. The Commission is unable at
this time to estimate the number of small businesses which could be
impacted by the rules. The Commission's 1994 Annual Report on PLMRs
indicates that at the end of fiscal year 1994 there were 1,087,267
licensees operating 12,481,989 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512
MHz. Any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a
PLMR license, therefore these proposed rules could potentially impact
every small business in the United States.
(h) Aviation and Marine Radio Service
Small entities in the aviation and marine radio services use a
marine very high frequency (VHF) radio, any type of emergency position
indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, a VHF aircraft radio,
and/or any type of emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The Commission
has not developed a definition of small entities specifically
applicable to these small businesses. Therefore, the applicable
definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules. Most
applicants for individual recreational licenses are individuals.
Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft
station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio
carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. Therefore, for purposes
of the evaluations and conclusions in this IRFA, the Commission
estimates that there may be at least 712,000 potential licensees which
are individuals or are small entities, as that term is defined by the
SBA.
(i) Offshore Radiotelephone Service
This service operates on several ultra high frequency (UHF) TV
broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal
area of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico.
At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service.
The
[[Page 68423]]
Commission is unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees
that would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition for
radiotelephone communications. The Commission assumes, for purposes of
this IRFA, that all of the 55 licensees are small entities, as that
term is defined by the SBA.
(j) General Wireless Communication Service
This service was created by the Commission on July 31, 1995 by
transferring 25 MHz of spectrum in the 4660-4685 MHz band from the
federal government to private sector use. The Commission has scheduled
the GWCS auction for May 27, 1998. The Commission is unable at this
time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition for radiotelephone communications.
(k) Fixed Microwave Services
Microwave services includes common carrier fixed, private
operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. At present,
there are 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and approximately
61,670 private operational fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary
radio licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet
defined a small business with respect to microwave services. For
purposes of this IRFA, the Commission will utilize the SBA definition
applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity with less than
1,500 persons. The Commission estimates that for purposes of this IRFA
all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary
radio licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition for radiotelephone communications.
(l) Commercial Radio Operators (restricted and commercial)
There are several types of commercial radio operator licenses.
Individual licensees are tested by Commercial Operator License
Examination managers (COLEMs). COLEMs file the applications on behalf
of the licensee. The Commission has not developed a definition for a
small business or small organization that is applicable for COLEMs. The
RFA defines the term ``small organization'' as meaning ``any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field * * *'' (See 5 U.S.C. 601(4)). The Commission's
rules do not specify the nature of the entity that may act as a COLEM.
However, all of the COLEM organizations would appear to meet the RFA
definition for small organizations.
(m) Amateur Radio Services
Amateur Radio service licensees are coordinated by Volunteer
Examiner Coordinators (VECs). The Commission has not developed a
definition for a small business or small organization that is
applicable for VECs. The RFA defines the term ``small organization'' as
meaning ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned
and operated and is not dominant in its field * * *'' (See 5 U.S.C.
601(4)). The Commission's rules do not specify the nature of the entity
that may act as a VEC. All of the sixteen VEC organizations would
appear to meet the RFA definition for small organizations.
(n) Personal Radio Services
Personal radio services provide short-range, low power radio for
personal communications, radio signaling, and business communications
not provided for in other services. These services include citizen band
(CB) radio service, general mobile radio service (GMRS), radio control
radio service, and family radio service (FRS). Inasmuch as the CB,
GMRS, and FRS licensees are individuals, no small business definition
applies for these services. The Commission is unable at this time to
estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition.
(o) Public Safety Radio Services and Governmental Entities
Public Safety radio services include police, fire, local
governments, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency
medical services. There are a total of approximately 127,540 licensees
within these services. Governmental entities as well as private
businesses comprise the licensees for these services. All governmental
entities with populations of less than 50,000 fall within the
definition of a small business. (See 5 U.S.C. 601(5)). There are
approximately 37,566 governmental entities with populations of less
than 50,000. The RFA also includes small governmental entities as a
part of the regulatory flexibility analysis. The definition of a small
governmental entity is one with a population of less than 50,000. There
are 85,006 governmental entities in the nation. This number includes
such entities as states, counties, cities, utility districts, and
school districts. There are no figures available on what portion of
this number has populations of fewer than 50,000; however, this number
includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns and of those, 37,566 or 96
percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau
estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all
governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, the
Commission estimates that 96 percent or 81,600 are small entities that
may be affected by our rules.
(p) Rural Radiotelephone Service
The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity
specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of
the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio
Systems (BETRS). The Commission will use the SBA definition applicable
to radiotelephone companies; i.e., an entity employing no more than
1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of
them qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
(q) Marine Coast Service
The Commission has not adopted a definition of small business
specific to the Marine Coast Service. The Commission will use the SBA
definition applicable to radiotelephone companies; i.e, an entity
employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 10,500
licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates
that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA definition.
(r) Wireless Communications Services (WCS)
WCS is a wireless service, which can be used for fixed, mobile,
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The
Commission defined ``small business'' for the WCS auction as an entity
with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three
preceding years. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in
the WCS service. There were seven winning bidders who qualified as very
small business entities and one small business entity in the WCS
auction. Based on this information, the Commission concludes that the
number of geographic area WCS licensees affected include these eight
entities. In addition to the above estimates, new applicants in the
wireless radio services will be affected by these rules, if adopted. To
assist the Commission in analyzing the total number of affected small
entities, commenters are requested to provide information regarding how
many small business entities will be affected by the proposed rules.
Comments relating to the number
[[Page 68424]]
of small business entities affected are due by the deadlines contained
in the NPRM.
17. In this NPRM, we seek comment on proposals to revise the
Commission's rate-of-return prescription regulations, the methodologies
used for calculating cash working capital, the detariffing of certain
telecommunications services, streamlining cost allocation manual filing
procedures, and consolidating the Commission's wireless radio rules.
These proposals are specifically designed to streamline regulations
that apply to incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), including the
Bell operating companies (BOCs) and GTE, and to wireless
telecommunications providers. We therefore expect that the potential
impact of the proposals, if adopted, is beneficial and does not amount
to a possible significant economic impact on affected entities. If
commenters believe that the proposals discussed in the Notice require
additional RFA analysis, they should include a discussion of these
issues in their comments.
18. We therefore certify, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA,
that the rules proposed in this NPRM will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Commission will publish this certification in the Federal Register and
will provide a copy of the certification to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. The Commission will also include this
certification in the report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. (See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)).
19. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in section 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before January 11, 1999 and reply
comments on or before January 25, 1999. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner
to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original
and nine copies. Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street,
N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Anthony Dale,
Legal Branch, Accounting Safeguards Division, FCC, Suite 201, Room
200D, 2000 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should also
file one copy of any documents filed in this docket with the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services,
Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Comments and
reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center 1919 M Street, N.W., Room
239, Washington, D.C. 20554.
20. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
information collections are due January 11, 1999 and reply comments on
or before January 25, 1999. Written comments must be submitted by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified
information collections on or before 60 days after date of publication
in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to Timothy Fain,
OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].
21. Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on
diskette. Such diskette submission would be in addition to and not a
substitute for the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties
submitting diskettes should submit them to Anthony Dale, Legal Branch,
Accounting Safeguards Division, FCC, Suite 201, Room 200D, 2000 L
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a
3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS Dos 5.0
and WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette should be submitted in
``read only'' mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the
party's name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comments)
and date of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover
letter.
22. Parties also may file comments electronically via the Internet
at: <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and
Order, FCC 98-56 (rel. April 6, 1998). Only one copy of an electronic
submission must be submitted. In completing the transmittal screen,
commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing
address, and the lead docket number for this proceeding, which is CC
Docket No. 98-177. Parties may also file informal comments or an exact
copy of your formal comments electronically via the Internet at www.fcc.gov/e-file/> or via e-mail at <[email protected]>. Only one
copy of electronically-filed comments must be submitted. You must put
the docket number of this proceeding in the subject line if you are
using e-mail (CC Docket No. 98-177), or in the body of the text if by
Internet. Parties must note whether an electronic submission is an
exact copy of formal comments on the subject line. Parties also must
include their full name and Postal Service mailing address in their
submission.
List of subjects in 47 CFR Part 65
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common
carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-32910 Filed 12-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P