[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 152 (Monday, August 7, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48211-48217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19895]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 76 and 78

[CS Docket No. 00-78; FCC 00-165]


Implementation of the Cable Operations and Licensing System 
(COALS) to Allow for Electronic Filing

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposes to amend 
its regulations governing the filing of forms and applications for the 
Cable Services Bureau. These proposed rule changes are designed to 
facilitate the FCC's implementation of the Cable Operations and 
Licensing Systems (COALS), a new electronic filing system. The Notice 
constitutes part of the FCC's ongoing review of its regulations 
consistent with the biennial review process mandated by Section 11 of 
the Communications Act. COALS will enable all cable services 
applicants, licensees and registrants to file electronically, thus 
increasing the speed and efficiency of the application and filing 
process. COALS will also make license and cable operational information 
more accessible to Commission staff and will enhance the availability 
of cable system information to the cable industry and the public.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 6, 2000 and reply 
comments are due on or before September 21, 2000. Written comments by 
the public on the proposed information collections are due September 6, 
2000. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections on or before 
October 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20554. 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 1-C804, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to 
Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to springer [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Wayne McKee (202)418-2355 or Richard 
Kalb (202)418-1055, Cable Services Bureau, or via the internet at 
[email protected]. or [email protected]. For additional information concerning 
the information collections contained in this NPRM contact Judy Boley 
at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CS Docket 00-78, adopted May 11, 2000 
and released May 23, 2000. The full text of this decision is available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554, 
and may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, 
NW, Washington, DC 20036, or may be reviewed via the internet at http://www.fcc.gov/csb.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), we seek 
comment on our proposal to revise the rules governing the filing of 
forms and applications for the Cable Services Bureau (``CSB''). These 
include applications in the Cable Television Relay Service (CARS 
microwave applications), cable television operator registrations, and 
aeronautical frequency usage filings. These proposed rule changes are 
designed to facilitate our implementation of the Cable Operations and 
Licensing Systems (``COALS'')--a new electronic filing system. This 
Notice constitutes part of our ongoing review of the Commission's 
regulations consistent with the biennial review process mandated by 
Section 11 of the Communications Act.
    2. COALS will enable all cable services applicants, licensees, and 
registrants (hereinafter referred to as ``electronic filers''), for the 
first time, to file all license-related applications and other filings 
electronically, thus increasing the speed and efficiency of the 
application and filing process.
    3. COALS will also make license and cable operational information 
more accessible and more usable by Commission staff in carrying out our 
regulatory responsibilities. This will enable the Commission staff to 
monitor spectrum use and competitive conditions in the cable 
marketplace more easily and will promote more effective implementation 
of our spectrum management policies.
    4. COALS will also enhance the availability of cable system 
information to the cable industry and the public. They will be able to 
access all cable system information by using any World Wide Web 
browser. These changes will benefit not only Commission licensees, but 
also members of the public that have historically had little or no 
access to such information. COALS will also allow persons seeking to 
obtain licensing information to search our database and retrieve the 
desired information via COALS. This will be more cost-effective than 
obtaining copies of Commission records manually from the Commission's 
copy contractor or the Commission's public reference rooms. Commission 
orders, public

[[Page 48212]]

notices, and other releases will be available on the Internet without 
charge.
    5. In addition, the cost of filing applications or obtaining 
information will be reduced. Applicants will be charged normal filing 
fees for filing applications under COALS, but will save time and 
resources by filing electronically.
    6. This NPRM reviews our current rules regarding information filed 
with the Commission, and proposes modifications only where necessary to 
fully implement COALS. Our objective in implementing COALS is to reduce 
costs to the Commission, cable operators, and the public by making the 
filing and review process faster and simpler.
    7. Many of the rule changes proposed in this NPRM are merely 
procedural in nature. Section 553(b)(3)(A) of the Administrative 
Procedures Act provides an exception from notice and comment 
requirements for procedural rules. However, as a result of the 
development of COALS, we are proposing fundamental and extensive 
changes to the way we receive and process license applications, cable 
community registrations, aeronautical notifications and Forms 320 and 
325. The changes needed to introduce COALS and to effectuate electronic 
filing and processing of most applications and notifications are 
sufficiently extensive that we believe it desirable to seek public 
comment on the full impact these changes may have on cable filers and 
the public. We provide notice and seek comment because we propose to 
change the data collection and management mechanisms, use a universal 
database to prepare, analyze, and report statistics, and use these 
proposals to form the basis for future rulemakings, compliance actions 
and other Commission initiatives.
    8. In this NPRM, we seek comment on the following issues and 
proposals:
     whether we should require mandatory or optional electronic 
filing;
     how the CSB's application and licensing forms can be 
modified to make filing less burdensome;
     consolidating, and in some cases revising, the rules that 
determine whether a change to a pending CARS application or existing 
authorization is major or minor;
     amending return and dismissal procedures for defective or 
incomplete applications;
     standardizing the collection of information from cable 
applicants and licensees;
     requiring the submission of a Taxpayer Identification 
Number (``TIN'') or its functional equivalent by applicants and 
licensees using COALS, consistent with the requirements of the Debt 
Collection Improvement Act of 1996; and
     eliminating unnecessary or duplicative filing and notice 
requirements.

A. Electronic Filing

1. Mandatory or Electronic Filing
    9. Background. COALS gives us the capability to accept cable 
related forms and notifications electronically. A number of other 
processes within the Commission have already moved to electronic filing 
systems, and the Commission's policies have consistently encouraged 
electronic filing. The public has also requested that the Commission 
implement electronic filing of information wherever feasible to 
facilitate more user-friendly queries of Commission data. As a 
consequence, the Commission has recently sought comment on various 
changes to the rules that are intended to eliminate unnecessary filing 
and reporting requirements. In those proceedings, a number of 
commenters suggested that the Commission introduce electronic filing 
systems.
    10. Discussion. With the introduction of COALS, we will have the 
ability to accept electronic filing of most regularly collected forms 
used by the Cable Services Bureau. We tentatively propose that during 
the second quarter of the year 2000, cable operators filing forms, 
applications, registrations, and notifications in the Cable Services 
Bureau have the option of filing electronically. We believe that 
allowing optional electronic filing for cable services is in the public 
interest because it will help to accomplish our goals of: (1) A smooth 
transition to COALS; (2) continual streamlining of our filing process; 
(3) affording parties a quick and economical means to file applications 
and other documents; and (4) making all filed information quickly and 
easily available to interested parties and the public. We believe that 
the effect of this option on applicants and licensees in cable services 
would be beneficial; indeed, COALS is intended to relieve the burden on 
all filers of the time and cost of paper filings. We request comment on 
these proposals.
    11. While we propose to allow optional electronic filing for cable 
services, we seek comment on whether electronic filing should be made 
mandatory. We propose allowing optional filing because we recognize 
that those affected by our decision will be a diverse group, ranging 
from very small to very large entities. We recognize that some 
applicants may not have access to computers with the hardware and 
capability to utilize the software necessary to submit their 
applications electronically. Conversely, requiring electronic filing 
may eliminate possible confusion in a dual filing system and expedite 
our transition to COALS.
    12. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether electronic filing 
should be made optional or mandatory. Commenters advocating mandatory 
electronic filing should propose a timetable for the transition to such 
filing.
    13. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
requires federal agencies to make materials available in accessible 
formats for persons with disabilities. Commenters may address ways to 
make COALS more accessible to individuals with disabilities in light of 
this obligation.
    14. Finally, we request comment on whether it would benefit 
applicants, licensees, and registrants subject to electronic filing if 
the Commission maintained computer facilities at the Washington, DC 
headquarters for the public to use to file forms electronically. 
Commenters should discuss the resources needed to support this, e.g., 
the number of computers necessary for public use. We note, however, 
that any facility (e.g. public libraries, universities, ``Internet 
cafes,'' etc.) that has Internet access capabilities can be used for 
COALS electronic filings. It is our intention to make electronic filing 
as widely valuable and successful as possible, and we request public 
input for further suggestions to meet this goal.
2. Electronic Payment
    15. Background. Current Commission rules generally require 
applications or filings that require a fee be sent to the Commission's 
lockbox bank in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with the correct fee and 
form.
    16. Discussion. With implementation of COALS, we propose to allow 
cable applicants and filers to pay their filing costs electronically or 
to be sent to the Commission's lock box bank manually.
3. Electronic Signature
    17. Background. Current Commission rules require that applicants 
and licensees provide original hand-written signatures on registrations 
and applications filed with the Commission.
    18. Discussion. In allowing for electronic filing, COALS will allow 
applicants and licensees to sign filings with the Commission 
electronically. We propose that an electronic signature shall consist 
of the name of the

[[Page 48213]]

applicant transmitted electronically via COALS and entered on the 
application as a signature. We note that COALS will require pre-
registration and that system users will be assigned a system identifier 
and associated password prior to their use of an electronic signature, 
as further discussed in paragraph 22.
4. Copy Requirements
    19. Background. Current Commission rules require the filing of a 
specified number of copies of all applications and papers filed with 
the Commission in order to ensure that appropriate staff have access to 
the documents and that timely information is provided to the public.
    20. Discussion. In this proceeding, we propose to eliminate the 
current copy requirements that are no longer necessary. We tentatively 
conclude that reducing the number of copies that parties have to file 
would serve the public interest because such requirements are 
unnecessary under COALS. In the past, multiple copies were required to 
make application and licensing information available to the public and 
to Commission employees. COALS, however, provides an unprecedented 
degree of accessibility to this information. Whether applications or 
pleadings are filed electronically or manually, all information will be 
available online to interested parties and to the Commission's staff. 
After implementation of COALS, any data that are filed manually will be 
entered or scanned as necessary and will be available in the same 
fashion as electronically filed information. Thus, there will no longer 
be a need for an applicant to file numerous paper copies. We propose to 
amend our rules so that applicants who file applications electronically 
will not be required to provide paper copies. We see comment on these 
proposals and tentative conclusions.
5. Use of Taxpayer Identification Numbers
    21. Background. In 1996, Congress enacted the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act (``DCIA'') as part of an effort to increase collection 
of delinquent government debts from private entities. As a result of 
DCIA, the Commission and executive agencies are required to monitor and 
provide information about their regulatees to the U.S. Treasury. This 
provision includes a requirement that the Commission collect Taxpayer 
Identifying Numbers (``TIN'') and share them with the U.S. Treasury to 
ensure that the Commission does not refund monies to entities that have 
an outstanding debt to the federal government. TINs are 9-digit 
identifiers required of all individuals and employers to identify their 
tax accounts. Individuals use their Social Security Number as the TIN, 
while employers use the Employer Identification Number (``EIN'') issued 
by the IRS to all employers. TINs are an integral part of the DCIA 
system and are necessary for the collection of delinquent debt owed to 
federal agencies. The TIN matches payment request with delinquent 
information. As a result, federal agencies have been required to share 
the TINs of benefit recipients since April 26, 1996, the effective date 
of DCIA. The Financial Management Service of the U.S. Treasury has 
recommended that agencies obtain the TIN when an agency first has 
direct contact with a person.
    22. Discussion. The Commission has already taken steps to ensure 
proper collection of TINs from parties seeking to make filings using 
COALS. Development of COALS will require that we continue to collect 
TINs from CSB applicants and licensees because some of these parties 
may be the recipients of a refund for overpayment of filing and/or 
regulatory fees or auction bids.
    23. We further propose that all parties seeking to file 
applications through COALS be required to submit a TIN as a 
prerequisite for using the system, for purposes of fee payment 
verification, and subsequently, that filers be issued a COALS system 
identifier and associated password for access to the electronic system. 
Under this proposal, individuals would use their Social Security Number 
as their TIN, while other entities would use their EINs as their TIN. 
Parties submitting manually filed forms and applications will continue 
to be required to supply their TIN on forms and applications, where 
applicable, because all such information will be placed on COALS and a 
TIN is necessary to track these applications.
    24. We also note that the TIN is part of the required information 
for current manual and proposed electronic filers as identifiers for 
cable filing purposes, and is therefore available to the general public 
searching records. For example, the cable television registration 
statement requires a social security or entity identification number, 
either of which can be a TIN. Accordingly, this number will be 
available to those accessing a particular registration statement. We 
seek comment on whether a TIN number, for privacy and other reasons, 
should not be available to those searching the database electronically, 
even though the number will be available to those searching through the 
same records which may have been filed manually.
    25. We note that under the proposal, parties other than cable 
operators and CARS licensees would have some access to COALS without 
providing a TIN. For example, parties seeking to find information 
electronically through COALS would not be required to submit a TIN, but 
rather would be permitted to access COALS using a general search 
criteria defined by COALS. Members of the public also would not be 
required to register to simply view applications or search the COALS 
database. We seek comment on whether requiring the use of TINs with the 
COALS systems would satisfy the requirements of the DCIA and would 
provide a unique identifier for parties filing applications with COALS 
that would ensure that the system functions properly. We tentatively 
conclude that the TIN is the logical choice for the system identifier 
because it is unique to each licensee and applicant, and these parties 
will likely have already obtained a TIN from the Internal Revenue 
Service in order to conduct their business. However, we note that it is 
still to be determined whether the TIN will be used as the COALS login.

B. Cable Services Bureau Operational Procedures

1. New Forms
    26. Background. Currently, cable operators are required to file a 
registration statement with the Commission, which includes their legal 
name, mailing address and other operator information. Any change to the 
operator's legal name, mailing address or operational status must also 
be filed with the Commission. The operator is given the choice as to 
the format for the submission of this information, as no FCC forms for 
the provision of this information currently exist.
    27. Discussion. We propose to create three new forms for the 
registration process. The first new form, FCC Form-xxx, will formalize 
and standardize the format for the cable television registration 
statement. At the same time, we propose to eliminate the requirement 
that the Commission give public notice of cable television registration 
statements. It has been our experience that registration statement 
public notices are not generally used to track registration data and do 
not generate public comment. Further, we propose to eliminate the 
requirement that 47 CFR 76.12 registrants disclose the date upon which 
they served 50 or more subscribers. This requirement no longer has a 
regulatory purpose. The second

[[Page 48214]]

new form, FCC Form-xxx, will formalize and standardize the format when 
a cable operator has a change in name, mailing address or operational 
status. The third form, FCC Form-xxx, will formalize and standardize 
the manner in which cable operators provide information to the 
Commission regarding usage of aeronautical frequencies. Under 47 CFR 
76.615(b)(6), operators are required to provide a description of their 
routine monitoring procedures used for compliance with the aeronautical 
frequency usage rules. To facilitate electronic filing and review, we 
propose to allow operators to check a box in Form-xxx which certifies 
that their monitoring procedures fully comply with the requirements of 
Sec. 76.614 of the Commission's rules. As a whole, these forms will 
facilitate electronic filing by creating a uniform format by which all 
cable operators provide their information, making it easier for 
Commission personnel to process the filings. In addition, we propose to 
modify FCC Form 327, used for applications in the Cable Television 
Relay Service, by revising Schedule C to eliminate redundant channeling 
and source information that are no longer required and transferring 
transmission tower information from the transmit D schedule (previously 
D[00]) to the C schedule. Furthermore, we intend to modify the Form 327 
to conform with other electronically filed forms currently in use 
within the Commission and to eliminate requested information that is no 
longer necessary. We seek comment on this proposal.
2. Returns and Dismissals of Incomplete or Defective Submissions
    28. Background. Currently, filing with the Commission involves the 
completion of a form and forwarding the completed application to the 
Commission. When incomplete or incorrectly filed forms or applications 
are received, the applicant is either contacted by phone or mail to 
correct the problem, or the submission is returned in accordance with 
CSB policies. The COALS filing system will reduce filing errors 
resulting from incomplete filings. For example, COALS will pre-fill 
ownership and address information for applicants who are already 
Commission licensees. It will also interactively check that required 
elements of applications are completed and prompt applicants to correct 
errors. We anticipate that this system will expedite the grant of 
applications and help to ensure the integrity of the data in our 
licensing database.
    29. There will be two means for parties to electronically file 
applications with the Commission: batch and interactive. Batch filing 
involves data transmission in a single action, without any interaction 
with the Commission's COALS system. Batch filers will follow a set 
Commission format for entering data. Batch filers will then send, via 
file transfer protocol, batches of data to the Commission for 
compiling. COALS will compile such filings overnight and respond the 
next business day with a return or dismissal of any defective filings. 
Thus, batch filers will not receive immediate correction from the 
system as they enter the information. Interactive filing involves data 
transmission with screen-by-screen prompting from the Commission's 
COALS system. Interactive filers will receive prompts from the system 
identifying data entries outside the acceptable ranges of data for the 
individual fields at the time the data entry is made. Because 
interactive filers will be able to enter corrected information in real 
time, they are less likely to submit applications that are incomplete 
or incorrect.
    30. Discussion. We propose to conform our filing rules for all CSB 
filers so that batch, interactive, and, where applicable, manual filers 
will be subject to the same requirements and procedures for defective 
or incomplete submissions. Interactively filed submissions will be 
screened in real time by the COALS system; therefore, errors will be 
unlikely but may occur in some instances where erroneous information is 
entered. In the case of batch and manually filed submissions, 
incomplete or erroneous filings will not be detected until after the 
submission is filed. Manually filed submissions, if erroneous, will not 
be returned until the CSB staff reviews the submission and detects the 
problem. In all cases, regardless of filing method, except as indicated 
below, we propose that a filer who submits a filing that is accepted by 
COALS, but is found subsequently to have missing or incorrect 
information, be notified of the defect. We seek comment on allowing 
operators 30 days from the date of this notification to correct or 
amend the submission if the amendment is minor. If the applicant files 
a timely corrected application, it will ordinarily be processed as a 
minor amendment in accordance with the Commission's rules. Thus it will 
have no effect on the initial filing date of the application or the 
applicant's filing priority. If, however, the amendment made by the 
applicant is not a simple correction but constitutes a major amendment 
to the application, it will be governed by the rules and procedures 
applicable to major amendments, i.e., it will be treated as a new 
application with a new filing date. Finally, if the applicant fails to 
submit an amended application within the period specified in the 
notification, the application will be subject to dismissal for failure 
to prosecute. Notwithstanding the above, we propose that in all cases, 
submissions without a sufficient fee and manually filed applications 
that do not contain a valid signature will be immediately dismissed. We 
seek comment on these proposals.

C. Cable Services Bureau Licensing Procedures (CARS and Microwave 
Licenses)

1. Standardization of Major and Minor Filing Rules
    31. Background. Under current CARS rules, the standards for 
distinguishing between major and minor filings, particularly amendments 
to applications and modifications of licenses, are defined under 
Sec. 78.109 of the Commission's rules. The distinction between major 
and minor filings has significant procedural consequences in the 
application process, because a major amendment to an application causes 
the application to be considered newly filed, while a minor amendment 
generally has no impact on the filing date. Distinguishing between 
major and minor modifications to license applications is important, 
because major modifications are subject to the same public notice 
requirement as initial applications. Minor modifications, by contrast, 
do not trigger public notice obligations and, on occasion, do not 
require prior Commission approval.
    32. Discussion. The implementation of COALS provides a unique 
opportunity to implement a single set of uniform standards for defining 
major and minor amendments and modifications of all CARS licenses. The 
Commission is authorized to adopt rules classifying amendments as 
either major or minor. Therefore we propose to adopt a single rule, as 
set out below, that defines categories of major and minor changes for 
purposes of defining whether an amendment to an application or request 
for license modification is major or minor. We are not, however, 
proposing to revise the types of applications which require public 
notice or frequency coordination.

MAJOR

    Based on the above criteria, we tentatively conclude that the 
following changes should be considered major:
     Any increase in emission bandwidth beyond that authorized;

[[Page 48215]]

     Any change in the transmitting antenna system of a 
station, other than a CARS pickup station, including the direction of 
the main radiation lobe, directive pattern antenna gain or transmission 
line;
     Any horizontal change in the location of the antenna, 
other than a CARS pickup station transmitter;
     Any change in the type of modulation;
     Any change in the location of a station transmitter, other 
than a CARS pickup station transmitter, except a move within the same 
building or upon the tower or mast or a change in the area of operation 
of a CARS pickup station;
     Any change in frequency assignment including polarization;
     Any change in authorized operating power;
     Any substantial change in ownership or control;
     Any addition or change in frequency, excluding removing a 
frequency;
     Any request for partitioning or disaggregation;
     Any modification or amendment requiring an environmental 
assessment (as governed by 47 CFR 1.1301-1319);
     Any request requiring frequency coordination; or
     Any modification or amendment requiring notification to 
the Federal Aviation Administration as defined in 47 CFR part 17 
subpart B.

MINOR

    We tentatively conclude that any change not specifically listed 
above as major should be considered minor. This would include:
     Any name change not involving change in ownership or 
control of the license;
     Changes to administrative information, e.g., address, 
telephone number, or contact person.
    33. We further propose to allow licensees to implement minor 
technical or physical modifications to their facilities without prior 
Commission approval; licensees would be required only to notify the 
Commission within 30 days of implementing the change. However, we note 
that there are times that applicants and licensees may submit multiple 
amendments or modifications that individually would be considered minor 
changes, but that, when considered together, would constitute a major 
change. In this connection, we propose that multiple minor changes be 
considered a major change to the extent that their cumulative effects 
relative to the original authorization or the last major change exceed 
the threshold(s) set forth above as major changes. We seek comment on 
this proposal. Commenters should address the standard we should adopt 
to alert applicants and licensees that multiple minor amendments or 
modifications will be considered a major change.
2. Filing of Pleadings Associated with Applications
    34. Background. Currently, Sec. 1.49 of the Commission's rules 
allows pleadings and documents filed in most Commission proceeding to 
be filed electronically.
    35. Discussion. Once COALS is implemented, we intend to enhance 
COALS to allow pleadings and informal requests for Commission actions 
associated with applications or licenses in cable services to be filed 
electronically. Such pleadings include petitions to deny, petitions for 
reconsideration, applications for review, comments, motions for 
extension of time, and subsequently filed pleadings related to such 
filings (i.e., oppositions and replies). We expect such an enhancement 
to COALS to be forthcoming and that the system will be able to accept 
pleadings prepared in several popular software formats. In anticipation 
of such an enhancement, we propose to allow electronic filing of 
pleadings regarding CARS applications as an option, rather than a 
requirement. As a procedural example, electronic filers will be queried 
regarding which application is at issue. This query will enable us to 
easily associate pleadings with related applications and make the 
pleadings accessible to the public. In addition, parties submitting 
pleadings via COALS will continue to be required to service paper 
copies on all interested parties. We propose to allow electronic 
service where the party to be served consents in advance in their 
pleadings. We propose that when a party has agreed to electronic 
service of a document, the three-day mailing rule for computation of 
time purposes is inappropriate, and that service will be considered the 
same as facsimile service. We seek comment on this proposal.
3. Letter Requests
    36. Background. The Commission's rules currently permit CARS 
licensees to request certain actions by letter instead of with a formal 
application filing. Each year CSB receives hundreds of letter requests, 
which must be processed manually. In addition, Section 308(a) of the 
Communications Act states that formal applications are not required 
during national emergencies or under other exceptional circumstances 
(``Special Situations'')
    37. Discussion. We seek comment on requiring requests relating to 
licenses or applications to be filed using COALS forms rather than 
continuing to accept and process letter requests. Commenters should 
address whether we should eliminate letter filings for applications, 
modifications, renewals, amendments, extensions, cancellations, special 
temporary authorizations, and name and address changes, except for the 
Special Situations set forth in Section 308(a) of the Communications 
Act. We note that our forms are widely available to the public on the 
FCC's web page and through a fax-on-demand service, and their use 
should be far less burdensome for the public than drafting a letter 
request. Parties can call 1-202-418-0177 from the handset of any fax 
machine and follow the recorded instructions. Using a form instead of a 
letter will also enable Commission staff to handle requests more 
quickly and accurately. We also note that even if manually filed with 
the Commission, COALS forms are more likely than a letter to be sent 
directly to the appropriate Bureau and division for processing. In 
addition, many requests for minor modifications could, if filed on a 
form, be automatically granted, thus relieving the Commission of a 
significant processing burden. Nonetheless, we are mindful that it may 
be unduly burdensome for some licensees to use a specific form rather 
than a letter to request minor changes to an application or license, 
such as a change of address. Therefore, interested parties should 
address whether letter requests should be permitted under certain 
circumstances, and if so, identify those circumstances.

D. Collection of Licensing and Technical Data

1. Overview
    38. In reviewing our processing functions to adapt them to 
electronic filing, we propose to eliminate some existing data 
collection requirements and licensing requirements that no longer serve 
a useful purpose or that can be further streamlined. We seek comment on 
the types of technical data that we should collect from applicants and 
licensees, and whether there are particular data collection 
requirements that should be either added or deleted.
2. Change to North American Datum 83 Coordinate Data
    39. Background. To perform its licensing role, CSB requires that 
certain applicants submit coordinate data with

[[Page 48216]]

their applications. Where applicable, applicants are required to submit 
coordinate data using the 1927 North American Datum (``NAD27'') 
geographical survey. A more recent North American Datum (``NAD83'') was 
completed in 1983, which provides updated coordinate data. NAD83 was 
adopted as the official coordinate system for the United States in 
1989. On September 1, 1992, we issued a public notice noting the change 
and stating that we would be converting our databases to NAD83. At that 
time, however, in order to provide sufficient time to study the 
changes, we allowed applicants to continue indefinitely to provide 
coordinate data using NAD 27.
    40. Discussion. We tentatively conclude that use of NAD83 will 
result in more accurate licensing decisions via the COALS system, and 
will also conform with the current Federal Aviation Administration 
regulations, which require the use of NAD83 data. In addition, it will 
conform with the Antenna Structure Registration (``ASR'') system 
currently in use by the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau. We propose that all cable services submissions be required to 
provide such data using the NAD83 datum for sites located in the 
continental United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and offshore sites adjacent to 
these areas (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico) to be expressed in terms of 
latitude and longitude referenced to NAD83. Sites located in the 
Northern Mariana Islands, Midway Island, and Wake Island should 
continue to be referenced to the applicable local datum. This exception 
for the Pacific insular areas is necessary because NAD83 is not 
applicable to these areas. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion 
and proposal.

II. Conclusion

    41. We have set forth proposals to allow COALS to function more 
efficiently. A more efficient and fully functional COALS will mean that 
licensing information will be widely available to members of the 
public. We also believe that development of full electronic filing and 
widely available databases for the cable services will shorten 
application filing times for applicants, make the most recent data 
available to them concerning cable operators and other spectrum uses, 
and relieve the administrative burden on this Commission, enabling us 
to operate with greater efficiency. Accordingly, we tentatively 
conclude that it is in the public interest to implement the electronic 
filing of applications and other documents, and that COALS 
implementation, as well as the combined application and processing 
rules proposed herein, will help achieve that goal.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    42. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 603, the Commission is incorporating an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected impact on small 
entities of the policies and proposals in this NPRM. Written public 
comments concerning the effect of the proposal in the NPRM, including 
the IRFA, on small businesses are requested. Comments must be 
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 
for the submission of comments in this proceeding. The Commission's 
Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the NPRM, 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.
    43. Need for Action and Objective of the Proposed Rule Change. We 
undertake this proceeding to facilitate implementation of the COALS 
electronic filing system, so that cable services applicants and 
associated parties may file documents with greater speed and 
efficiency. The system will also make license and cable operational 
information more accessible to the Commission's staff, as well as the 
cable industry and the general public.
    44. Legal Basis. The authority for the action proposed for the 
rulemaking is contained in section 4(i) and 303(r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
    45. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities 
Impacted. The IRFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will 
be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business concern'' 
under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. 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.
    46. The Commission has developed its own definition of a ``small 
cable company'' and ``small system'' for the purpose of rate 
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is 
one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide. Based on our 
most recent information, we estimate that there were 1,439 cable 
companies that qualified as small cable companies at the end of 1995. 
Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 
400,000 subscribers, and other may have been involved in transactions 
that caused them to be combined with other cable companies. 
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1, 439 small entity 
cable companies that may be affected by the proposed rules changes in 
the Notice. The Commission's rules also define a ``small system,'' for 
the purposes of cable rate regulation, as a cable system with 15,000 or 
fewer subscribers. We do not request nor do we collect information 
concerning cable systems serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers and thus 
are unable to estimate at this time the number of small cable systems 
nationwide.
    47. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a ``small 
cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through 
an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity 
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that there are 61,700,000 
subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we found that an operator 
serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers is deemed a small operator, if 
its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of 
all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 
Based on available data, we find that the number of cable operators 
serving 617,000 subscribers or less totals 1,450. Although it seems 
certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with 
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable 
at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable 
system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the 
definition in the Communications Act.
    48. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other 
Compliance Requirements: The Commission is proposing to reduce the 
burdens of certain reporting or information collection requirements.
    49. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered: The RFA requires an

[[Page 48217]]

agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or 
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting 
requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of 
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The 
Notice solicits comments on all alternatives to organize the electronic 
filing system. Any significant alternatives presented in the comments 
will be considered. In addition, we seek comment on whether electronic 
filing should be made optional or mandatory. For additional discussion 
of the effect on small business, see paragraphs 9 through 14. Small 
entities are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule change.
    50. Federal Rules that May Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rules: None.

B. Ex Parte

    51. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, provided they are 
disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 CFR 
1.1202, 1.1203 and 1.1206(a).

C. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments

    52. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments 
on or before [date]and reply comments on or before [Date]. All relevant 
and timely comments will be considered before final action is taken in 
this proceeeding. Comments may be filed using the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 
(1998).
    53. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. 
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If 
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of 
the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the 
caption. 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], and 
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get 
form your e-mail address.'' A sample form and directions will be sent 
in reply.
    54. To file formally in this proceeding, participants must file an 
original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and 
supporting comments. If more than one docket or rulemaking number 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two 
additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. If 
participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their 
comments, an original plus nine copies must be filed. Comments and 
reply comments should be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie 
Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554. 
Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of 
the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20554.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This NPRM 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 to take this opportunity to comment on the information 
collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. Public and agency 
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB 
comments are due 60 days from 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 function 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.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-19895 Filed 8-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P