[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40839-40843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15240]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 04-127]


Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; solicitation of comments.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the 
Recommended Decision, FCC 04J-1, February 27, 2004, of the Federal-
State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) concerning the 
process for designation of eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) 
and the Commission's rules regarding high-cost universal service 
support. We seek comment on whether the Joint Board's recommendations 
should be adopted, in whole or in part, in order to preserve and 
advance universal service, maintain competitive neutrality, and ensure 
long-term sustainability of the universal service fund. We also seek 
comment on several related proposals to streamline our rules governing 
annual certifications and submission of data by competitive ETCs 
seeking high-cost support.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 6, 2004. Reply comments are 
due on or before September 7, 2004.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, 
Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. See 
Supplementary Information for further filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Spade, Assistant Chief, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 
418-7105, TTY (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 04-127, released 
June 8, 2004. The full text of this document is available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (NPRM), FCC 04-127, June 
8, 2004, we seek comment on the Recommended Decision of the Federal-
State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) concerning the 
process for designation of eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) 
and the Commission's rules regarding high-cost universal service 
support. In its Recommended Decision, the Joint Board recommended that 
the Commission adopt permissive Federal guidelines for States to 
consider in their proceedings to designate ETCs under section 214 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). In addition, the 
Joint Board recommended that the Commission limit the scope of high-
cost support to a single connection that provides a subscriber access 
to the public telephone network. Finally, the Joint Board recommended 
that the Commission further develop the record on specific issues 
identified in its Recommended Decision relating to the high-cost 
support mechanism, including identification of mobile wireless customer 
location, and standards for the submission of accurate, legible, and 
consistent maps. We seek comment on whether the Joint Board's 
recommendations should be adopted, in whole or in part, in order to 
preserve and advance universal service, maintain competitive 
neutrality, and ensure long-term sustainability of the universal 
service fund. We also seek comment on several related proposals to 
streamline our rules governing annual certifications and submission of 
data by competitive ETCs seeking high-cost support.

II. Issues for Comment

    2. ETC Designation Process. We seek comment on the Joint Board's 
recommendation regarding the ETC designation process, which we 
incorporate by reference. In addition to the existing minimum 
eligibility requirements specified in section 214(e)(1) of the Act, the 
Joint Board recommended that the Commission adopt permissive Federal 
guidelines encouraging State commissions to consider certain additional 
minimum qualifications when evaluating ETC designation requests. The 
Joint Board also recommended that the Commission further develop the 
record on ways in which State commissions may determine whether an 
applicant satisfies the additional minimum qualifications as part of 
the ETC designation process. The Joint Board recommended that State 
commissions apply these permissive Federal guidelines in all ETC 
proceedings, and that State commissions use a higher level of scrutiny 
for ETC applicants seeking designation in areas served by rural 
carriers, consistent with section 214(e)(2) of the Act. While the Joint 
Board did not endorse adoption of a specific cost-benefit test for the 
purpose of making public interest determinations under section 
214(e)(2), it indicated that states may properly consider the level of 
Federal high-cost per-line support to be received by ETCs in making 
public interest determinations. The Joint Board noted that the public 
interest analysis should be consistent with the purposes and goals of 
the Act itself. Finally, the Joint Board recommended that the 
Commission encourage States to use the annual certification process for 
all ETCs to ensure that Federal universal service support is used to 
provide the supported services and for associated infrastructure costs. 
We encourage commenters to address with particularity these issues 
concerning the ETC designation process in their comments.
    3. Scope of Support. We seek comment on the Joint Board's 
recommendation to limit the provision of high-cost support to a single 
connection that provides a subscriber access to the public telephone 
network. Commenters should describe how the Commission may develop 
competitively neutral rules and procedures that do not create undue 
administrative burdens. We specifically request comments from Universal 
Service Administrative Company (USAC) on the administration of a 
primary line approach. To minimize the potential impact of restricting 
the scope of support in areas served by rural carriers, the Joint Board 
recommended that the Commission seek comment on restating, or 
``rebasing,'' the total high-cost support flowing to a rural carrier's 
study area on ``primary'' or single connections, and on other possible 
measures including ``lump sum'' and ``hold harmless'' proposals 
associated with a primary line restriction. In conjunction with certain 
of these measures, the Joint Board also recommended that high-cost 
support in areas served by rural carriers be capped on a per-line basis 
when a competitive carrier is designated as an ETC and be adjusted 
annually by an index factor. We seek comment on the Joint Board's 
recommended approach to limit the scope of support, specifically on the

[[Page 40840]]

advantages and disadvantages of each of the three alternatives set 
forth in the Recommended Decision. We ask that commenters provide 
detailed projections on the potential effects of each of the 
alternatives.
    4. The Joint Board also recommended that the Commission further 
develop the record on how best to implement support for primary 
connections, including consideration of proposals to allow consumers 
with more than one connection to designate an ETC's service as 
``primary'' and rate issues associated with supporting primary 
connections. We also ask commenters to address the treatment of certain 
types of connections under the Joint Board's recommended approach, 
particularly the appropriate treatment of businesses with multiple 
connections. Finally, the Joint Board recommended that the Commission 
seek comment on the potential impact of its primary connection proposal 
on investment in rural areas and consider adoption of transitional 
measures for support in areas served by competitive ETCs. We encourage 
commenters to address these implementation issues in their comments, 
and to identify specifically the costs and benefits of any amended 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    5. Other Issues. In addition to seeking comment on the specific 
recommendations provided by the Joint Board, we also seek comment on 
several related proposals to modify our current rules governing the 
filing of annual certifications and data submissions by ETCs. 
Specifically, we seek comment on whether to amend our rules to allow 
newly designated ETCs to begin receiving high-cost support as of their 
ETC designation date, provided that the required certifications and 
line-count data are filed within sixty (60) days of the carrier's ETC 
designation date. We also seek comment on a procedure for accepting 
untimely filed certifications for Interstate Access Support (IAS). In 
the MAG Order, 66 FR 57919 Final Rule, 66 FR 59719 Proposed Rule, 
November 30, 2001, the Commission determined that a carrier that 
untimely files its annual certification for Interstate Common Line 
Support would not be eligible for support until the second calendar 
quarter after the certification is filed. We propose adopting a similar 
procedure for accepting untimely certifications for IAS. We request 
that USAC address any operational issues relating to these proposals, 
particularly with respect to any administrative burdens that may be 
associated with them.

III. Procedural Matters

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 of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a significant number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 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 below in section III.D. The Commission will send a copy of the 
notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the notice and IRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of the Proposed Rules
    8. The Act requires the Commission to consult with the Joint Board 
in implementing the universal service requirements provided in section 
254 of the Act, which establishes a number of principles for the 
preservation and advancement of universal service in a competitive 
telecommunications environment. Given the increasing number of ETC 
designations since the Commission's rules were first developed in 1997, 
the Commission asked the Joint Board to review the Commission's rules 
relating to high-cost universal service support in study areas in which 
a competitive ETC is providing services, and to review the Commission's 
rules regarding support for second lines. The Commission also asked the 
Joint Board to examine the process for designating ETCs. Consistent 
with the Commission's request in the Referral Order, 68 FR 10429, March 
5, 2003, the Joint Board sought comment and held a public forum to 
address concerns regarding the designation and funding of ETCs in high-
cost areas. Based on its review and consideration of the record 
developed in this proceeding, the Joint Board issued its Recommended 
Decision on February 27, 2004. The Joint Board stated that its overall 
recommendations were intended to preserve and advance universal 
service, maintain competitive neutrality, and ensure long-term 
sustainability of the universal service fund. Specifically, the Joint 
Board recommended that the Commission adopt permissive Federal 
guidelines for States to consider in proceedings to designate ETCs, 
noting that such guidelines would facilitate a more flexible and 
rigorous ETC designation process among states, and improve the long-
term sustainability of the universal service fund, as only fully 
qualified carriers that are capable of, and committed to, provide 
universal service would be able to receive support. The Joint Board 
also recommended that the Commission limit the scope of high-cost 
support to a single connection that provides access to the public 
telephone network. It stated that limiting the scope of support to 
single connections is necessary to preserve the sustainability of the 
universal service fund, would send more appropriate entry signals in 
rural and high-cost areas, and would be competitively neutral. We now 
seek comment on the Joint Board's recommendations, consistent with 
section 254(a)(2) of the Act.
2. Legal Basis
    9. This rulemaking action is supported by sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 
205, 214, 218-220, 254, 403, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules 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 rules adopted herein. 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, 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 Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    11. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in 
this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under 
the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business 
size standard (e.g., a telephone communications

[[Page 40841]]

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 local exchange carriers are not dominant 
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not 
``national'' in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent local 
exchange carriers in this IRFA analysis, although we emphasize that 
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations 
in other, non-RFA contexts.
    12. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers (Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers). The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of 
all such companies having 1500 or fewer employees. According to Census 
Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in this category, total, 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,201 firms had 
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 24 firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, 
the great majority of firms can be considered small.
    13. Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Competitive 
Access Providers, Operator Service Providers, Payphone Providers, and 
Resellers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition 
particular to small local exchange carriers (LECs), interexchange 
carriers (IXCs), competitive access providers (CAPs), operator service 
providers (OSPs), payphone providers or resellers. The closest 
applicable definition for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that SBA definition, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to our 
most recent data, there are 1,337 incumbent LECs, 609 CAPs, 261 IXCs, 
23 OSPs, 761 payphone providers and 758 resellers. Of these, an 
estimated 1,032 incumbent LECs, 458 CAPs, 223 IXCs, 22 OSPs, 757 
payphone providers, and 717 resellers reported that they have 1,500 or 
fewer employees; 305 incumbent LECs, 151 CAPs, 38 IXCs, one OSP, four 
payphone providers, and 41 resellers reported that, alone or in 
combination with affiliates, they have more than 1,500 employees. We do 
not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not 
independently owned and operated, and therefore we are unable to 
estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers that would 
qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. 
Consequently, most incumbent LECs, IXCs, CAPs, OSPs, payphone providers 
and resellers are small entities that may be affected by the decisions 
and rules adopted in this Order.
    14. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has size standards for 
wireless small businesses within the two separate Economic Census 
categories of Paging and of Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications. For both of those categories, the SBA considers a 
business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to 
the most recent Trends in Telephone Report data, 1,387 companies 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless service. 
Of these 1,387 companies, an estimated 945 reported that they have 
1,500 or fewer employees and 442 reported that, alone or in combination 
with affiliates, they have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, we 
estimate that most wireless service providers are small entities that 
may be affected by the rules adopted herein.
    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 $40 million or less 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 affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 
million for the preceding three calendar years. These standards 
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 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. 
On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block 
licenses; there were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 
2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS 
licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 
29 qualified as ``small'' or ``very small businesses.'' Based on this 
information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS 
licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders, the 93 
qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, the 48 winning bidders in 
the 1999 re-auction, and the 29 winning bidders in the 2001 re-auction, 
for a total of 260 small entity broadband PCS providers, as defined by 
the SBA small business size standards and the Commission's auction 
rules. Consequently, we estimate that 260 broadband PCS providers are 
small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted 
herein.
    16. Narrowband PCS. To date, two auctions of narrowband PCS 
licenses have been conducted. Through these auctions, the Commission 
has awarded a total of 41 licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by 
small businesses. For purposes of the two auctions that have already 
been held, small businesses were defined by the Commission as entities 
with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 
million or less. To ensure meaningful participation of small business 
entities in the auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered 
definition of small businesses in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and 
Order, 65 FR 35875, June 6, 2000. A small business is an entity that, 
together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross 
revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A 
very small business is an entity that, together with affiliates and 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three 
preceding years of not more than $15 million. These definitions have 
been approved by the SBA. In the future, the Commission will auction 
459 licenses to serve MTAs and 408 response channel licenses. There is 
also one megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in 
reserve and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for 
licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of 
licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future auctions. 
However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous narrowband 
PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was defined under the 
Commission's Rules. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this IRFA, 
that a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be 
awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least 
some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of 
the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules.
    17. Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR). The Commission awards ``small 
entity'' and ``very small entity'' bidding credits in auctions for 
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz 
and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 
million in each of the three previous calendar years, or that had

[[Page 40842]]

revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous 
calendar years, respectively. In the context of both the 800 MHz and 
900 MHz SMR service, the definitions of ``small entity'' and ``very 
small entity'' have been approved by the SBA. These bidding credits 
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 our purposes here, that all of the remaining existing 
extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as 
that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held auctions for 
geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR bands. There 
were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small and very small entities 
in the 900 MHz auctions. Of the 1,020 licenses won in the 900 MHz 
auction, bidders qualifying as small and very small entities won 263 
licenses. In the 800 MHz SMR auction, 38 of the 524 licenses won were 
won by small and very small entities. Consequently, we estimate that 
there are 301 or fewer small entity SMR licensees in the 800 MHz and 
900 MHz bands that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted 
herein.
    18. 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). For purposes of 
this IRFA, we will use the SBA's size standard applicable to wireless 
service providers, supra--an entity employing no more than 1,500 
persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural 
Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of 
them qualify as small entities under the SBA's size standard. 
Consequently, we estimate that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity 
licensees in the Rural Radiotelphone Service that may be affected by 
the rules and policies adopted herein.
    19. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not 
adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground 
Radiotelephone Service. For purposes of this IRFA, we will use the 
SBA's size standard applicable to wireless service providers, supra--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.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    20. In its Recommended Decision, the Joint Board recommends that 
the Commission adopt permissive federal guidelines for states and the 
Commission to use in determining whether applicants are qualified to be 
designated as ETCs under section 214 of the Act. Should the Commission 
decide to adopt this recommendation, entities designated as ETCs under 
sections 214(e)(2) and 214(e)(6) of the Act could be subject to the 
additional compliance requirements described in the Recommended 
Decision as a condition of their ETC designation. The Joint Board also 
recommended that the Commission limit the scope of support to single 
connections providing access to the public telephone network. If the 
Commission ultimately adopts this recommendation, entities could be 
subject to additional reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements as deemed necessary to implement this recommendation. 
Without more certainty about which options we will or will not adopt as 
rules, we cannot accurately estimate the cost of compliance by small 
carriers. We therefore seek comment on the types of burdens carriers 
could face if the proposed recommendations are adopted. Entities, 
especially small businesses, are encouraged to quantify, if possible, 
the costs and benefits of potential reporting, recordkeeping and other 
compliance requirements.
    21. On its own motion, the Commission is proposing to modify its 
current annual certification and line count data requirements to allow 
competitive ETCs to submit required data more frequently than provided 
in the current rules, in order to avoid lags between certification 
filings and the receipt of support. Commenters, especially small 
businesses, are encouraged to quantify, if possible, the costs and 
benefits of the potential modifications.
5. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    22. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, 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. 
This IRFA seeks comment on how the Joint Board's recommendations could 
be implemented in a manner that reduces the potential burden and cost 
of compliance for small entities. We also seek comment on the potential 
impact of the proposed recommendations related to the Commission's 
proposal to limit support to a single connection on interested parties, 
including small entities. Specifically, the Commission has detailed 
three proposals that might avoid or mitigate reductions in the amount 
of high-cost support flowing to rural carriers, some of which might be 
small entities, as a result of implementing a primary-line restriction. 
We seek comment on these three proposals (restatement, lump sum payment 
and hold harmless) and whether any or all of them would minimize the 
economic impact on small entities, which may include providers of 
wireless as well as wireline communications services.
6. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rules
    23. None.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    24. As part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we 
invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed information 
collections contained in this notice, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due at the same time as other comments on the notice; OMB comments 
are due September 7, 2004. 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

[[Page 40843]]

automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.

D. Comment Filing Procedures

    25. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the 
Notice and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis contained herein. 
Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments 
on or before August 6, 2004, and reply comments on or before September 
7, 2004. All filings should refer to CC Docket No. 96-45. Comments may 
be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) 
or by filing paper copies.
    26. 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, U.S. 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 .'' A sample form and directions will be sent 
in reply.
    27. 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. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, 
Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper 
filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, 
NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location 
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before 
entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. 
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service 
first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed 
to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of 
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    28. Parties also must send three paper copies of their filing to 
Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room 5-B540, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, commenters must 
send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20054.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    29. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 
201, 205, 214, 218-220, 254, 403, and 410 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 205, 214, 218-220, 
254, 403, and 410 this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    30. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-15240 Filed 7-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P