[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7867-7872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2377]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 36, 54, and 69

[CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 01-8]


Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the 
Recommended Decision of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
Service (Joint Board) regarding a plan for reforming the rural 
universal service support mechanism submitted by the Rural Task Force.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 26, 2001 and reply 
comments are due on or before March 12, 2001. Written comments by the 
public on the proposed and/or modified information collections 
discussed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are due on or 
before February 26, 2001. Written comments must be submitted by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified 
information collections on or before March 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original 
and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must 
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie 
Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 
filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the 
information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judy 
Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to 
Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to [email protected]. Parties 
should also send three paper copies of their filings to Sheryl Todd, 
Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room 5-B540, 
Washington, DC 20554. Parties who choose to file by paper should also 
submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted 
to Sheryl Todd, Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room 5-
B540, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, commenters must send diskette 
copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription 
Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Guice, Attorney, Common Carrier 
Bureau, Accounting Policy Division, (202) 418-7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-45 released 
on January 12, 2001. The full text of this document is available for 
public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference 
Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554. 
This FNPRM contains proposed information collection(s) subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, 
the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment 
on the proposed information collections contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The FPRM contains a proposed information collection. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the 
information collection(s) contained in this NPRM, as required by the 
PRA, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments on the proposed and/
or modified information collections discussed in this Notice of

[[Page 7868]]

Proposed Rulemaking are due on or before February 26, 2001. Written 
comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 
March 27, 2001.
    Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 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.
    OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service--Proposed 
Plan for Reforming the Rural Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC 
Docket No. 96-45.
    Form No.: None.
    Type of Review: Proposed New Collections.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Total
                  Title                    Number of               Est. time per expense                annual
                                          respondents                                                   burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Self-Certified Disaggregation Plan...          873  .66 (40 minutes)............................          576
2. Reporting of Working Loops at Cost-            873  2 hrs.......................................         1746
 Zone Level.
3. State Certification Letter...........           51  3 hrs.......................................          153
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Burden: 2475.
    Cost to Respondents: $0.
    Needs and Uses: The Rural Task Force proposes that rural carriers 
be given a choice of three different options for disaggregating and 
targeting per-line universal service support, including high-cost loop 
support, Long Term Support (LTS), and Local Switching Support (LSS), to 
wire center cost zones. Path 1 would be available to rural carriers 
that do not want to target high-cost support. Path 2 would be available 
to rural carriers that want state commission review and approval of a 
disaggregation plan. Path 3 would be available to rural carriers 
interested in self-certifying a method for disaggregating universal 
service support into a maximum of two cost zones per wire center. A 
disaggregation plan filed under Path 3 must use a rationale that is 
reasonably related to the cost of providing service for each cost zone 
within each disaggregation category (high-cost loop support, LSS, and 
LTS). If these proposals are adopted, rural carriers that elect to 
disaggregate and target per-line support would be required to report 
loops at the cost-zone level, as opposed to reporting loops at the 
study area level. We believe the burden associated with this proposed 
reporting requirement is appropriately balanced with the benefits 
reporting rural carriers would receive. The Rural Task Force also 
proposes extension of the section 254(e) certification process to rural 
carriers. Under this process, state regulatory commissions would 
provide the Commission with annual certifications indicating that the 
carriers in their states receiving federal universal service support 
will use the support ``only for the provision, maintenance, and 
upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is 
intended.'' This reporting requirement would provide states and 
carriers with access to federal universal service support in a way that 
ensures the integrity of the universal service fund. This is a nominal 
burden on rural carriers and is balanced against the high degree of 
federal universal service benefits rural carriers would receive. This 
proposed modification would ensure that receipt of the federal support 
is appropriate and being used in a manner consistent with section 254 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The goal of these proposals are 
to ensure that per-line high-cost universal service support more 
closely associates the cost of providing service and promotes efficient 
competitive entry.

Synopsis of NPRM

I. Introduction

    1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek 
comment on the Recommended Decision of the Federal-State Joint Board on 
Universal Service (Joint Board) regarding a plan for reforming the 
rural universal service support mechanism. The Joint Board sent to the 
Commission the Rural Task Force Recommendation as a good foundation for 
implementing a rural universal service plan that benefits consumers and 
provides a stable environment for rural carriers to invest in rural 
America. The Joint Board also identified specific issues for the 
Commission to address in implementing the Rural Task Force plan. The 
Joint Board's Recommended Decision, which incorporates the Rural Task 
Force plan as Appendix A, is attached as Appendix 1 to the FNPRM.

II. Issues for Comment

    2. We seek comment on the Joint Board's conclusion that the Rural 
Task Force Recommendation is a good foundation for implementing a rural 
universal service plan for the next several years. Should we adopt the 
Rural Task Force plan as a means of providing stability to rural 
carriers over the next several years and encouraging investment in 
rural infrastructure? Does the Rural Task Force plan provide for 
universal service support that is sufficient for purposes of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996? Parties should comment on the public 
policy implications of the Rural Task Force plan and/or particular 
aspects of the plan, including its potential effects on the competition 
and universal service goals of the 1996 Act, and whether and how it 
would promote consumer welfare. Parties also should address how small 
business entities, including small incumbent local exchange carriers 
and new entrants, will be affected by the Rural Task Force plan.
    3. We also seek comment on specific implementation issues 
identified by the Joint Board, as well as any other issues related to 
implementation of the Rural Task Force Recommendation. First, we invite 
commenters to address the proposed safety valve mechanism for providing 
additional support to rural carriers that make meaningful post-
transaction investments in acquired exchanges. How should safety valve 
support be distributed if the total amount of support for which rural 
carriers are eligible exceeds the proposed cap of five percent of the 
high-cost loop support fund? How should ``meaningful investment'' be 
defined for purposes of safety valve support? Should a carrier's safety 
valve support transfer to a different carrier as a result of a 
subsequent transfer of exchanges? Should safety valve support be fixed 
in competitive study areas in the same manner as other high-cost loop 
support, or would such an approach unduly dissuade investment? We 
invite commenters to address these and any

[[Page 7869]]

other issues involved in implementing a safety valve mechanism.
    4. Second, we invite commenters to address implementation of the 
Rural Task Force proposal to fix per-line support in competitive study 
areas. The Joint Board agreed with the Rural Task Force that the 
Commission should fix support when a competitor begins providing 
services in a given study area, but stated that ``it is unclear how the 
high-cost loop fund cap would account for fixed rural carrier 
support.'' We seek comment from interested parties, including the Rural 
Task Force, on the relationship of the cap on high-cost loop support to 
fixed per-line support in competitive study areas. We also seek comment 
on whether the proposed ability of incumbent LECs to adjust their fixed 
per-line support levels to recover costs associated with catastrophic 
events should be limited by the availability of support from other 
sources, such as insurance, Rural Utilities Service loans, and federal 
or state emergency management relief. Commenters are invited to address 
these and any other issues involved in implementing the provisions of 
the Rural Task Force plan for support in competitive study areas.
    5. Third, we seek comment on the Rural Task Force proposal to make 
above-the-cap safety net additive support available in years in which 
the cap on high-cost loop support is triggered to rural carriers with 
over 14 percent growth in telecommunications plant in service. As 
proposed, would the safety net additive mechanism enable rural carriers 
to recover more than 100 percent reimbursement on their incremental 
loop investment? If so, how should the mechanism be modified? We invite 
commenters to address this and any other safety net additive 
implementation issues. Finally, we invite interested parties to comment 
on any other issues related to implementation of the Rural Task Force 
plan.

III. Procedural Issues

A. Ex Parte Presentations

    6. This is a permit but disclose rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte 
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, 
provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the proposals in this FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on 
the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the filing 
deadlines, and should have a separate and distinct heading designating 
them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission will send a copy of the 
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA) in accordance with the RFA. In 
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    8. The 1996 Act requires the Commission to consult with the Joint 
Board in implementing section 254, which establishes a number of 
principles for the preservation and advancement of universal service in 
a competitive telecommunications environment. The Commission initiated 
this proceeding to consider the Recommended Decision of the Joint Board 
regarding a rural universal service plan developed by the Rural Task 
Force. The Rural Task Force plan is a proposal for the distribution of 
universal service support to rural carriers which is designed to be 
implemented immediately and to remain in place over a five-year period. 
The Joint Board found that the Rural Task Force sought to achieve the 
goals of the 1996 Act to preserve and advance universal service, 
facilitate competition in rural areas, and provide a predictable level 
of universal service support. The Joint Board stated that the Rural 
Task Force plan would provide rural carriers with stability for 
planning their investments over the next several years, while seeking 
to encourage competition in high-cost areas through a flexible system 
for disaggregating support to establish the portable per-line support 
amount available to all eligible telecommunications carriers. The Joint 
Board found that additional support under the plan is ``generally 
designed to provide carriers serving rural areas with increased 
incentives to invest in new infrastructure and technologies.'' In sum, 
the Joint Board recommended the Rural Task Force plan to the Commission 
as a good foundation for implementing a rural universal service plan 
that benefits consumers and provides a stable environment for rural 
carriers to invest in rural America.
2. Legal Basis
    9. This rulemaking action is supported by sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 
205, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
 3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Notice Will Apply
    10. 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 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the term ``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, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that 
are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small Business Act, a 
``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently owned and 
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets 
any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    11. We have included small incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis. 
A ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the 
pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone 
communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not 
dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy 
contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent carriers are not 
dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not 
``national'' in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent 
carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA 
action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in 
other, non-RFA contexts.
    12. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small providers of local exchange services. 
The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone 
communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies. According to the most recent Telecommunications Industry 
Revenue data, 1,348 incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged 
in the provision of local exchange services. We do not have data 
specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in 
their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated, or 
have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of local exchange carriers 
that would

[[Page 7870]]

qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Of the 
1,348 incumbent carriers, 13 entities are price cap carriers that would 
not be subject to the rules, if adopted. Consequently, we estimate that 
fewer than 1,335 providers of local exchange service are small entities 
or small incumbent local exchange carriers that may be affected by the 
proposed Rural Task Force plan.
    13. Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically 
applicable to competitive access services providers (CAPs). The closest 
applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone 
communications companies other than except radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service 
data, 212 CAPs/competitive local exchange carriers and 10 other local 
exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
competitive local exchange services. We do not have data specifying the 
number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, 
or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of CAPs that would qualify 
as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we 
estimate that there are less than 212 small entity CAPs and 10 other 
local exchange carriers that may be affected by the proposed Rural Task 
Force plan.
    14. Cellular Licensees. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
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 (wireless) 
companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone 
company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau 
of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms from 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. In addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular 
licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several licenses. In 
addition, according to the most recent Telecommunications Industry 
Revenue data, 808 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of either cellular service or Personal Communications Service 
(PCS) services, which are placed together in the data. We do not have 
data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently 
owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are 
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of 
cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns 
under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are 
fewer than 808 small cellular service carriers that may be affected by 
the proposed Rural Task Force plan.
    15. Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS). The broadband 
PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through 
F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission 
defined ``small entity'' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has 
average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous 
calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for ``very 
small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, together 
with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 
million for the preceding three calendar years. These regulations 
defining ``small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS auctions have 
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved 
definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 
90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C 
auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won 
approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. Based 
on this information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS 
licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 
qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 small 
entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction 
rules.
    16. 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). 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 
1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate 
that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA's 
definition.
    17. 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. In the context of 900 MHz SMR, 
this regulation defining ``small entity'' has been approved by the SBA; 
approval concerning 800 MHz SMR is being sought.
    18. These fees apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 
bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained 
extended implementation authorizations. We do 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. We assume, 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.
    19. For geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band, there are 
60 who qualified as small entities. For the 800 MHz SMR's, 38 are small 
or very small entities.
    20. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common 
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 
services. At present, there are approximately 22,015 common carrier 
fixed licensees and 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, we will utilize the 
SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies--i.e., an 
entity with no more than 1,500 persons. We estimate, for this purpose, 
that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast 
auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA 
definition for radiotelephone companies.
    21. 39 GHz Licensees. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition of small entities applicable to 39 GHz 
licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the 
definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone 
company employing no more than 1,500 persons. For purposes of the 39 
GHz license auction, the Commission defined ``small entity'' as an 
entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the 
three previous calendar years, and ``very small entity'' as an entity 
that has average gross revenues of not more that $15 million for the 
preceding three calendar years. The Commission has granted licenses to 
29 service providers in the 39 GHz service. We do not have

[[Page 7871]]

data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently 
owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are 
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of 39 
GHz licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the 
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are no more than 
29 39 GHz small business providers that may be affected by the proposed 
Rural Task Force plan.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    22. The Rural Task Force proposes that rural carriers be given a 
choice of three different options for disaggregating and targeting per-
line universal service support, including high-cost loop support, Long 
Term Support (LTS), and Local Switching Support (LSS), to wire center 
cost zones. Path 1 would be available to rural carriers that do not 
want to target high-cost support. Path 2 would be available to rural 
carriers that want state commission review and approval of a 
disaggregation plan. Path 3 would be available to rural carriers 
interested in self-certifying a method for disaggregating universal 
service support into a maximum of two cost zones per wire center. A 
disaggregation plan filed under Path 3 must use a rationale that is 
reasonably related to the cost of providing service for each cost zone 
within each disaggregation category (high-cost loop support, LSS, and 
LTS). Rural carriers would be required to choose one of the paths 
within 270 days of the effective date of the proposed new rules. If 
these proposals are adopted, rural carriers that elect to disaggregate 
and target per-line support would be required to report loops at the 
cost-zone level, which would be a modification of the current 
requirement that carriers report loops at the study-area level. This 
change should require only minor increases to a carrier's reporting 
burdens, and predominantly only in the first year that the carrier 
revises its method of reporting. We estimate that the annual burden 
hours in the first year would be 60 hours. We estimate subsequent 
annual burden hours at 8 hours. We believe the burden associated with 
this proposed reporting requirement is appropriately balanced with the 
benefits reporting rural carriers would receive.
    23. The Rural Task Force also proposes extension of the section 
254(e) certification process to rural carriers. Under this process, 
state regulatory commissions would provide the Commission with annual 
certifications indicating that the carriers in their states receiving 
federal universal service support will use the support ``only for the 
provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for 
which the support is intended.'' This reporting requirement would 
provide states and carriers with access to federal universal service 
support in a way that ensures the integrity of the universal service 
fund. We estimate that the annual burden hours associated with the 
section 254(e) certification process would be 12 hours per carrier. 
This is a nominal burden on rural carriers and is balanced against the 
high degree of federal universal service benefits rural carriers would 
receive.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    24. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance 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.
    25. The Rural Task Force Recommendation under consideration herein 
is the product of analysis of a number of options for distributing 
federal universal service support to rural carriers, including the 
continuation or modification of the current system of support, a system 
of support based on forward-looking cost models, competitive bidding 
approaches, rate buy-down mechanisms, and a melded approach combining 
aspects of both the current, embedded-cost system and a forward-looking 
support system. The results of the Rural Task Force's evaluation of 
these various options are set forth in the third and fourth White 
Papers prepared by the Rural Task Force. The Rural Task Force 
ultimately recommended the modified version of the current high-cost 
loop support mechanism based on carriers' embedded costs set forth in 
its Recommendation.
    26. Alternatives to the proposed adoption of the Rural Task Force 
Recommendation include continuation of the current high-cost loop 
support mechanism for rural carriers, developing a new support 
mechanism based on forward-looking economic costs, or adopting specific 
aspects of the Rural Task Force Recommendation instead of adopting the 
Recommendation as a whole. We invite comment on how any of these 
alternatives, or any other alternatives discussed herein, would be 
likely to affect small businesses.
    6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules
    27. None.

IV. Comment Filing Procedures

    28. Pursuant to Secs. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
interested parties may file comments February 26, 2001, and reply 
comments March 12, 2001. Comments may be filed using the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
    29. 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.

V. Ordering Clauses

    30. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 
201-205, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    31. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 36

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telephone.

[[Page 7872]]

47 CFR Part 54

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, 
Telephone.

47 CFR Part 69

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-2377 Filed 1-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P