[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26927-26931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12410]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96-61; FCC 99-43]


Implementation of the Rate Integration Requirement of the 
Communications Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), the Commission 
seeks further comment on the application of rate integration to 
interstate, interexchange services offered by commercial mobile radio 
service (CMRS) providers. Specifically, the Commission invites 
interested parties to comment on how rate integration should be applied 
to wide-area calling plans, services offered by affiliates, plans that 
assess local airtime or roaming charges in addition to separate long-
distance charges for interstate, interexchange services, and whether 
cellular and PCS service rates should be integrated.

DATES: Comments are due on, or before, May 27, 1999. Reply comments are 
due on, or before, June 28, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th 
Street S.W., Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Wolfe, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-2191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the matter of Implementation 
of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, CC 
Docket No.96-61, adopted March 8, 1999, and released April 21, 1999. 
The complete text of this Notice is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference 
Center, room CY-A257, 445 12th Street S.W., Washington, DC. The Notice 
is available through the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/
Common__Carrier/notices/1999/fcc99043.wp. The complete text may be 
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), at 1231 20th Street N.W., 
Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
    Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice, we seek further comment on several issues 
regarding the application of rate integration under section 254(g) of 
the Communications Act to the interstate, interexchange services 
offered by commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers.

II. Applicability of Rate Integration to CMRS Services

A. Wide-Area Calling Plans

    2. Many CMRS providers have created calling plans that allow 
customers to extend the size of the calling area in which they do not 
incur roaming or separate long-distance charges, generically referred 
to as wide-area calling plans. Under these types of plans, the customer 
generally is assessed a monthly fee and obtains a specified number of 
airtime minutes as part of the monthly charge. In this section, we seek 
comment on: (1) whether there are wide-area calling plans or other 
types of plans that should not be subject to rate integration; (2) what 
limitations would rate integration requirements place on CMRS 
providers' plans; and, (3) whether we should forbear from rate 
integration requirements for some, or all, wide-area plans.
    3. Wide-area calling plans appear to offer customers significant 
benefits in the form of a simplified rate structure and additional 
choice. We believe that the analysis of wide-area calling plans begins 
with an examination of what constitutes an interexchange service, which 
is not defined in the Act. Some parties argue that the meaning of 
interexchange service should be derived from the definition of 
``telephone toll service.'' Telephone toll service is defined as 
``telephone service between stations in different exchange areas for 
which a charge is not included in contracts with subscribers for 
exchange service.'' 47 U.S.C. 153(48). Some CMRS providers assert that 
because CMRS providers are not rate regulated, CMRS providers can 
establish any area they choose as the ``exchange'' area. Under this 
approach, an interexchange call exists only if a separate charge is 
assessed for the interexchange call. The definition of ``telephone toll 
service'' depends, in part, on the definition of ``exchange services.'' 
``Telephone exchange service'' is defined as ``service within a 
telephone exchange, or within a connected system of telephone exchanges 
within the same exchange area * * * and which is covered by the 
exchange service charge, or * * * comparable service provided through a 
system of switches, transmission equipment, or other facilities (or 
combination thereof) by which a subscriber can originate and terminate 
a telecommunications service.'' 47 U.S.C. 153(47). Cellular, broadband 
PCS, and covered SMR providers have been found to provide ``comparable 
service'' to telephone exchange service because, as a general matter, 
local, two-way switched voice service is a principal part of the 
service.
    4. We invite parties to comment on how the definitions of 
``telephone toll service'' and ``telephone exchange service,'' should 
be applied in the CMRS context. We also seek comment on whether a 
nationwide wide-area calling plan would be a telephone exchange service 
pursuant to section 3(47) of the Act; whether the Commission should 
define this term for rate integration purposes; or whether, as alleged 
by some, the definition should be left to the discretion of CMRS 
providers. Parties should discuss the competitive implications of the 
alternative positions.
    5. We invite parties to comment on alternative ways of implementing 
rate integration in the wide-area calling plan context to foster 
customer choice, pricing flexibility, and competitive development of 
the industry. Specifically, what must a CMRS provider do in offering 
wide-area plans to comply with rate integration requirements? To assist 
us in this effort, we invite parties to document the types of wide-area 
calling plans that are available, including the range of plans that 
individual CMRS carriers offer. We are particularly interested in

[[Page 26928]]

comparisons between regional and nationwide plans. In addition, parties 
should indicate whether these wide-area plans encompass Alaska, Hawaii, 
and the U.S. territories and possessions. Parties are asked to discuss 
whether the existence of a basic plan with separate interexchange 
charges at integrated rates, or the availability of dial-around to 
reach a long-distance carrier with integrated rates, would warrant 
either minimal regulation of, or forbearance from regulating, wide-area 
calling plans pursuant to section 254(g).
    6. We also seek comment on how to evaluate multiple wide-area 
calling plans offered by a CMRS provider. Are there criteria that could 
be applied that would permit a variety of such plans to exist, while 
still complying with the rate integration requirement? If a CMRS 
provider offers wide-area calling plans, we invite parties to address 
whether it should be required to offer at least one such plan that 
serves all locations. Parties should comment on whether an approach 
that prohibited special rate categories for calls to non-contiguous 
insular points on a market-by-market basis, as suggested by PrimeCo, 
would be sufficient to prevent discrimination. Parties should focus on 
how any proposed approach to the treatment of wide-area calling plans 
balances the objective of fostering competitive market conditions with 
the goals of rate integration. Finally, we ask that parties discuss the 
implications of each approach for other policies applicable to CMRS 
providers.
    7. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether forbearance from the 
application of rate integration to wide-area calling plans is 
appropriate. Parties are invited to comment on whether the conditions 
in the CMRS market are such that the requirements of section 10 would 
be satisfied. Finally, we seek comment on the extent to which the 
continued applicability of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act is 
sufficient to protect against discriminatory or unreasonable rates; 
and, on the impact of specific proposals on small business entities, 
including new entrants.

B. Affiliation Requirements

    8. The Commission's rate integration policy has always required 
rate integration across affiliates. We tentatively conclude that an 
interpretation of section 254(g), consistent with this prior policy, 
that requires rate integration across affiliates is also consistent 
with the Congressional intent of section 254(g).
    9. In the Rate Integration Reconsideration Order, we specified that 
the current definitions of ``affiliate'' and ``control'' in section 
32.9000 of the Commission's rules will be used to determine whether 
companies are sufficiently related to require them to integrate their 
rates. Thus, we required affiliates under common ownership and control 
to integrate their rates. We observed that these definitions will 
permit application of rate integration to closely related affiliates 
while excluding those not under common control.
    10. CMRS providers assert that the affiliation rule is unworkable 
and could produce anticompetitive results. They state that CMRS 
ownership arrangements are complicated, typically including partnership 
arrangements among carriers that are often competitors in other 
markets. Several CMRS providers assert that the current affiliation 
requirement would force all related carriers to adopt identical rates 
and rate structures, thereby preventing CMRS providers from responding 
to competition and depriving customers of the benefits of pricing 
flexibility and customer choice associated with the detariffed CMRS 
environment.
    11. A workable affiliation rule is essential to preclude CMRS 
providers from evading the rate integration requirement of section 
254(g) by the simple process of creating separate, affiliated companies 
to serve different geographic areas. We recognize, however, that too 
stringent an affiliation rule could be unworkable and adversely effect 
pricing and customer choice, because of the complex nature of the CMRS 
market. We invite parties to propose the appropriate affiliation 
requirement. We request parties to address the following affiliation 
standards: (1) fifty-one percent or greater ownership control; and (2) 
eighty percent ownership control resulting in accounting on a 
consolidated basis. Parties should discuss how positive or negative 
control should affect the analysis. Parties also are asked to identify 
CMRS providers serving Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories and 
possessions that would be affected by different affiliation standards. 
We invite parties to suggest other affiliation standards that they 
believe are more workable. Finally, we seek comment on the nature of 
the fiduciary duty owed by a controlling partner to its partners, how 
that duty would be affected by application of the statutory 
requirements of section 254(g), and how that duty should affect the 
level of affiliation required to trigger rate integration requirements 
in the CMRS industry.
    12. We also seek comment on whether conditions in the CMRS market 
warrant forbearance from application of the affiliation requirement 
under section 10 of the Act. Parties should address how each element of 
the forbearance standard is met. Finally, parties should address the 
extent to which any affiliate standard they propose affects small 
business entities, including new entrants.

C. Plans That Assess a Local Airtime or Roaming Charge Plus Separate 
Long-Distance Charges for Interstate, Interexchange Services

    13. In this section, we seek further comment on the effects of the 
rate integration requirement of section 254(g) on the airtime or 
roaming charges associated with interstate, interexchange calls for 
which a separate long-distance charge is assessed. Airtime and roaming 
charges may be viewed in one or more ways. For example, airtime and 
roaming charges could be viewed as not interexchange in character and, 
therefore, not subject to rate integration, if the charges do not vary 
with the local or toll nature of the call. Alternatively, airtime and 
roaming charges could be viewed as part of the price for the long-
distance call and, therefore, subject to the rate integration 
requirement. We request comment on the legal and policy implications of 
the alternatives described above. Parties also should discuss any 
interrelationships with the definition of ``exchange'' and 
``interexchange,'' discussed above in conjunction with the 
consideration of wide-area calling plans.
    14. The local airtime or roaming charge assessed for a purely local 
call generally is the same as that assessed in connection with a toll 
call. That charge may vary from calling area to calling area because of 
differences in market conditions, just as exchange rates of incumbent 
LECs may vary among exchanges. Traffic, which involves no interstate, 
interexchange component, is not subject to rate integration. If airtime 
and roaming charges are subjected to rate integration, CMRS providers 
claim that they would be forced to assess the same airtime and roaming 
charge in all locations. Several parties noted that such a requirement 
could affect CMRS providers' ability to respond to competition or to 
offer customers a variety of pricing options. We seek comment on the 
ability of CMRS providers to impose separate, uniform airtime and 
roaming charges when a call is an interstate, interexchange call. To 
assist us in evaluating the implications of the application of rate 
integration to airtime and roaming charges, parties should provide 
detailed information on the percentage of calls and minutes that are 
local in nature as opposed to the

[[Page 26929]]

percentage of calls and minutes that are toll.
    15. CMRS providers state that airtime and roaming charges primarily 
reflect local market conditions. They allege that costs do not vary as 
widely as costs vary for exchange carriers, and that CMRS rates do not 
include subsidies that support high exchange costs. We ask parties to 
address the extent of any cost difference between the contiguous states 
and Hawaii, Alaska, and the covered U.S. territories and possessions, 
and to submit demonstrative evidence supporting their cost difference 
data. Parties also should address the extent to which any options they 
propose would affect small business entities, including new entrants.
    16. Finally, we ask parties to comment on whether, if we determine 
that airtime and roaming charges are properly part of an interstate, 
interexchange call, we should forbear from applying the rate 
integration requirement of section 254(g) to those airtime and roaming 
charges. Parties urging forbearance should discuss the standards of 
section 10 of the Act and how each element of the forbearance analysis 
is met. Parties also should discuss the effect of the continued 
applicability of sections 201, 202, and 208 on the forbearance 
analysis. In particular, we ask parties to discuss the extent to which 
those sections will protect consumers in a less than fully competitive 
market.

D. Integration of Cellular and PCS Services

    17. We invite parties to comment on whether the rates of cellular 
and broadband PCS services should be integrated. Parties should discuss 
any similarities or differences in the operation of cellular and PCS 
networks, as well as customer perceptions of the two types of services. 
Parties also are asked to suggest other similarities or differences 
that should affect our decision as to whether cellular and PCS services 
should be rate integrated. We invite parties to discuss the effect that 
requiring these services to integrate their rates would have on the 
intent, in part, that PCS service provide competition to cellular 
service. In addition, we ask parties to comment on whether their 
position differs if the CMRS provider uses an integrated cellular and 
PCS network to provide a single CMRS service or if the CMRS provider 
offers separate cellular and PCS services using distinct cellular and 
PCS facilities. Finally, we invite parties to address the extent to 
which a requirement to integrate the rates of cellular and PCS services 
would affect small business entities, including new entrants.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

    18. The Notice is a permit-but-disclose proceeding and is subject 
to the permit-but-disclose requirements under 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as 
revised. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that 
memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain a summary of the 
substance of the presentation 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 also 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    19. The Notice has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and does not contain new or 
modified information collections subject to Office of Management and 
Budget review.

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the proposals suggested in this Notice. The analysis is set forth at 
the end of this summary. Written public comments are requested on the 
IRFA. Comments and reply comments must be identified by a separate and 
distinct heading as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or 
before May 27, 1999 and June 28, 1999, respectively. Parties should 
address the extent to which our proposals affect large and small CMRS 
providers differently and how small business entities, including new 
entrants, will be affected. The Commission's Office of Public Affairs, 
Reference Operations Division, will send a copy of this Notice, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration, in accordance with the RFA. In addition, the 
Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.

D. Comment and Reply Comment Filing Dates and Procedures

    21. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 
May 27, 1999, and reply comments on or before June 28, 1999. Comments 
may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
    22. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Only 
one copy of the electronic submission must be filed. In completing the 
transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal 
Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should 
send an e-mail to [email protected], including ``get form '' in the body of the message. A sample form and directions 
will be sent in reply.
    23. Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the 
Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth St., S.W., Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554.
    24. Parties that choose to file by paper should also submit their 
comments on diskette. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch 
diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1 
for Windows or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied 
by a cover letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The 
diskette should be clearly labelled with the commenter's name, 
proceeding (including the docket number in this case, CC Docket No. 96-
61); type of pleading (comment or reply comment); date of submission; 
and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should 
also include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each 
diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a 
single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette 
copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription 
Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    25. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201-202, 
254, 303(r) and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151-154, 201-202, 254, 303(r) and 403, that notice is hereby 
given of the rulemaking described above and that comment is sought on 
these issues.
    26. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public 
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis,

[[Page 26930]]

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    27. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared this 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this Notice. Written public comments are requested on this 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided above. The 
Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    28. In the 1996 Act, Congress directed the Commission to develop 
rules implementing the provisions of section 254(g) within six months 
of its enactment. The Commission adopted broad rules implementing the 
provisions of section 254(g) in the Rate Integration Order. In the 
Notice, we seek comment on how the rate integration requirement of 
section 254(g) should be applied to certain interstate, interexchange 
offerings of CMRS providers. The objective is to develop rate 
integration policies for CMRS providers that address the conditions in 
the CMRS marketplace, while fulfilling the rate integration objective 
of section 254(g).

B. Legal Basis

    29. The proposed action is authorized by 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-
202, 254, 303(r) and 403.

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

    30. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
(a) Cellular Radio Telephone Service
    31. 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. 
According to the 1992 Census, which is the most recent information 
available, only 12 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 12 of these large firms were cellular telephone 
companies, all of the remainder were small businesses under the SBA's 
definition. Although there are 1,758 cellular licenses, we do not know 
the number of cellular licensees, since a cellular licensee may own 
several licenses. We assume that, for purposes of our evaluations in 
this IRFA, all of the current cellular licensees are small entities, as 
that term is defined by the SBA.
(b) Broadband Personal Communications Service
    32. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks 
designated A through F. Pursuant to section 24.720(b) of the 
Commission's Rules, the Commission has defined ``small entity'' for 
Block C and Block F licensees as firms that had average gross revenues 
of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. This 
regulation defining ``small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS 
auctions has been approved by the SBA.
    33. The Commission has auctioned broadband PCS licenses in all of 
its spectrum blocks A through F. We do not have sufficient data to 
determine how many small businesses under the Commission's definition 
bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. As of now, there are 
90 non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as small entities in the 
Block C auction and 93 non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as 
small entities in the D, E, and F Block auctions. Based on this 
information, we conclude that the number of broadband PCS licensees 
that would be affected by the proposals in this Notice includes the 183 
non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as small entities in the C, 
D, E, and F Block broadband PCS auctions.
(c) Specialized Mobile Radio
    34. Pursuant to section 90.814(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, the 
Commission has defined ``small entity'' for geographic area 800 MHz and 
900 MHz SMR licenses as firms that had average gross revenues of no 
more than $15 million in the three previous calendar years. This 
regulation defining ``small entity'' in the context of 800 MHz and 900 
MHz SMR has been approved by the SBA.
    35. The proposals set forth in the Notice may apply to SMR 
providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many 
firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service, nor how 
many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 
million.
    36. The Commission recently held auctions for geographic area 
licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. There were 60 winning bidders who 
qualified as small entities under the Commission's definition in the 
900 MHz auction. Based on this information, we conclude that the number 
of geographic area SMR licensees affected by the proposals set forth in 
this Notice includes these 60 small entities.
    37. A total of 525 licenses were auctioned for the upper 200 
channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. There were 62 
qualifying bidders, of which 52 were small businesses. The Commission 
has not yet determined how many licenses will be awarded for the lower 
230 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. There is no 
basis to estimate, moreover, how many small entities within the SBA's 
definition will win these lower channel licenses. We assume that, for 
purposes of our evaluations in this IRFA, all of the current 
specialized mobile radio licensees are small entities, as that term is 
defined by the SBA.
(d) 220 MHz Service
    38. The Commission has classified providers of 220 MHz service into 
Phase I and Phase II licensees. There are approximately 2,800 non-
nationwide Phase I licensees and 4 nationwide licensees currently 
authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission recently 
conducted the Phase II auction. There were 54 qualified bidders, of 
which 47 were small businesses.
    39. At this time, however, there is no basis upon which to estimate 
definitively the number of phase I 220 MHz service licensees that are 
small businesses. To estimate the number of such entities that are 
small businesses, we apply the definition of a small entity under SBA 
rules applicable to radiotelephone companies. This definition provides 
that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing

[[Page 26931]]

no more than 1,500 persons. According to the 1992 Census, which is the 
most recent information available, only 12 out of a total 1,178 
radiotelephone firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more 
employees--and these may or may not be small entities, depending on 
whether they employed no more than 1,500 employees. But 1,166 
radiotelephone firms had fewer than 1,000 employees and therefore, 
under the SBA definition, are small entities. However, we do not know 
how many of these 1,166 firms are likely to be involved in the phase I 
220 MHz service.
(e) Mobile Satellite Services (MSS)
    40. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities 
applicable to licensees in the international services. Therefore, the 
applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA 
rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified 
(NEC). This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one 
with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts. According to the Census 
Bureau, there were a total of 848 communications services, NEC in 
operation in 1992, and a total of 775 had annual receipts of less than 
$9.999 million.
    41. Mobile Satellite Services or Mobile Satellite Earth Stations 
are intended to be used while in motion or during halts at unspecified 
points. These stations operate as part of a network that includes a 
fixed hub or stations. The stations that are capable of transmitting 
while a platform is moving are included under section 20.7(c) of the 
Commission's Rules as mobile services within the meaning of sections 
3(27) and 332 of the Communications Act. Those MSS services are treated 
as CMRS if they connect to the Public Switched Network (PSN) and also 
satisfy other criteria of section 332. Facilities provided through a 
transportable platform that cannot move when the communications service 
is offered are excluded from section 20.7(c).
    42. The MSS networks may provide a variety of land, maritime and 
aeronautical voice and data services. There are eight mobile satellite 
licensees. At this time, we are unable to make a precise estimate of 
the number of small businesses that are mobile satellite earth station 
licensees.
(f) Paging Services
    43. The Commission has adopted a two-tier definition of small 
businesses in the context of auctioning licenses in the paging service. 
A small business is defined as either (1) a 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. The SBA has approved this definition for paging 
companies.
    44. The Commission estimates that the total current number of 
paging carriers is approximately 600. In addition, the Commission 
anticipates that a total of 16,630 non-nationwide geographic area 
licenses will be granted or auctioned. The geographic area licenses 
will consist of 2,550 Major Trading Area (MTA) licenses and 14,080 
Economic Area (EA) licenses. In addition to the 47 Rand McNally MTAs, 
the Commission is licensing Alaska as a separate MTA and adding three 
MTAs for the U.S. territories, for a total of 51 MTAs. No auctions of 
paging licenses have been held yet, and there is no basis to determine 
the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities. Given 
the fact that no reliable estimate of the number of paging licensees 
can be made, we assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the 
current licensees and the 16,630 geographic area paging licensees 
either are or will consist of small entities, as that term is defined 
by the SBA.
(g) Narrowband PCS
    45. The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional licenses 
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. At present, there have been no auctions 
held for the MTA and Basic Trading Area (BTA) narrowband PCS licenses. 
The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licensees and 2,958 BTA 
licensees will be awarded in the auctions. Those auctions, however, 
have not yet been scheduled. Given that nearly all radiotelephone 
companies have fewer than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate 
of the number of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be 
made, we assume, that all of the licensees will be awarded to small 
entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.
(h) Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service
    46. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small business 
specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, which is defined in 
section 22.99 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we will use the 
SBA's 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 we estimate 
that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA definition.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    47. We project that any rules adopted in response to the Notice 
will impose no significant new reporting or recordkeeping requirements 
on CMRS providers. CMRS providers will, of course, have to comply with 
any rate integration requirements that may be adopted in a final order. 
As part of that requirement, they may have to integrate their rates 
with those of specified affiliates.

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

    48. Throughout this Notice, we seek comment on the impact of the 
proposals in the Notice on small entities. We also seek comment on 
whether we should forbear from applying any of the rate integration 
requirements on which comment is sought to CMRS providers.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    49. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-12410 Filed 5-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U