[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26927-26931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12410]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 96-61; FCC 99-43]
Implementation of the Rate Integration Requirement of the
Communications Act
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), the Commission
seeks further comment on the application of rate integration to
interstate, interexchange services offered by commercial mobile radio
service (CMRS) providers. Specifically, the Commission invites
interested parties to comment on how rate integration should be applied
to wide-area calling plans, services offered by affiliates, plans that
assess local airtime or roaming charges in addition to separate long-
distance charges for interstate, interexchange services, and whether
cellular and PCS service rates should be integrated.
DATES: Comments are due on, or before, May 27, 1999. Reply comments are
due on, or before, June 28, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th
Street S.W., Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Wolfe, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-2191.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the matter of Implementation
of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, CC
Docket No.96-61, adopted March 8, 1999, and released April 21, 1999.
The complete text of this Notice is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference
Center, room CY-A257, 445 12th Street S.W., Washington, DC. The Notice
is available through the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/
Common__Carrier/notices/1999/fcc99043.wp. The complete text may be
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, International
Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), at 1231 20th Street N.W.,
Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice, we seek further comment on several issues
regarding the application of rate integration under section 254(g) of
the Communications Act to the interstate, interexchange services
offered by commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers.
II. Applicability of Rate Integration to CMRS Services
A. Wide-Area Calling Plans
2. Many CMRS providers have created calling plans that allow
customers to extend the size of the calling area in which they do not
incur roaming or separate long-distance charges, generically referred
to as wide-area calling plans. Under these types of plans, the customer
generally is assessed a monthly fee and obtains a specified number of
airtime minutes as part of the monthly charge. In this section, we seek
comment on: (1) whether there are wide-area calling plans or other
types of plans that should not be subject to rate integration; (2) what
limitations would rate integration requirements place on CMRS
providers' plans; and, (3) whether we should forbear from rate
integration requirements for some, or all, wide-area plans.
3. Wide-area calling plans appear to offer customers significant
benefits in the form of a simplified rate structure and additional
choice. We believe that the analysis of wide-area calling plans begins
with an examination of what constitutes an interexchange service, which
is not defined in the Act. Some parties argue that the meaning of
interexchange service should be derived from the definition of
``telephone toll service.'' Telephone toll service is defined as
``telephone service between stations in different exchange areas for
which a charge is not included in contracts with subscribers for
exchange service.'' 47 U.S.C. 153(48). Some CMRS providers assert that
because CMRS providers are not rate regulated, CMRS providers can
establish any area they choose as the ``exchange'' area. Under this
approach, an interexchange call exists only if a separate charge is
assessed for the interexchange call. The definition of ``telephone toll
service'' depends, in part, on the definition of ``exchange services.''
``Telephone exchange service'' is defined as ``service within a
telephone exchange, or within a connected system of telephone exchanges
within the same exchange area * * * and which is covered by the
exchange service charge, or * * * comparable service provided through a
system of switches, transmission equipment, or other facilities (or
combination thereof) by which a subscriber can originate and terminate
a telecommunications service.'' 47 U.S.C. 153(47). Cellular, broadband
PCS, and covered SMR providers have been found to provide ``comparable
service'' to telephone exchange service because, as a general matter,
local, two-way switched voice service is a principal part of the
service.
4. We invite parties to comment on how the definitions of
``telephone toll service'' and ``telephone exchange service,'' should
be applied in the CMRS context. We also seek comment on whether a
nationwide wide-area calling plan would be a telephone exchange service
pursuant to section 3(47) of the Act; whether the Commission should
define this term for rate integration purposes; or whether, as alleged
by some, the definition should be left to the discretion of CMRS
providers. Parties should discuss the competitive implications of the
alternative positions.
5. We invite parties to comment on alternative ways of implementing
rate integration in the wide-area calling plan context to foster
customer choice, pricing flexibility, and competitive development of
the industry. Specifically, what must a CMRS provider do in offering
wide-area plans to comply with rate integration requirements? To assist
us in this effort, we invite parties to document the types of wide-area
calling plans that are available, including the range of plans that
individual CMRS carriers offer. We are particularly interested in
[[Page 26928]]
comparisons between regional and nationwide plans. In addition, parties
should indicate whether these wide-area plans encompass Alaska, Hawaii,
and the U.S. territories and possessions. Parties are asked to discuss
whether the existence of a basic plan with separate interexchange
charges at integrated rates, or the availability of dial-around to
reach a long-distance carrier with integrated rates, would warrant
either minimal regulation of, or forbearance from regulating, wide-area
calling plans pursuant to section 254(g).
6. We also seek comment on how to evaluate multiple wide-area
calling plans offered by a CMRS provider. Are there criteria that could
be applied that would permit a variety of such plans to exist, while
still complying with the rate integration requirement? If a CMRS
provider offers wide-area calling plans, we invite parties to address
whether it should be required to offer at least one such plan that
serves all locations. Parties should comment on whether an approach
that prohibited special rate categories for calls to non-contiguous
insular points on a market-by-market basis, as suggested by PrimeCo,
would be sufficient to prevent discrimination. Parties should focus on
how any proposed approach to the treatment of wide-area calling plans
balances the objective of fostering competitive market conditions with
the goals of rate integration. Finally, we ask that parties discuss the
implications of each approach for other policies applicable to CMRS
providers.
7. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether forbearance from the
application of rate integration to wide-area calling plans is
appropriate. Parties are invited to comment on whether the conditions
in the CMRS market are such that the requirements of section 10 would
be satisfied. Finally, we seek comment on the extent to which the
continued applicability of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act is
sufficient to protect against discriminatory or unreasonable rates;
and, on the impact of specific proposals on small business entities,
including new entrants.
B. Affiliation Requirements
8. The Commission's rate integration policy has always required
rate integration across affiliates. We tentatively conclude that an
interpretation of section 254(g), consistent with this prior policy,
that requires rate integration across affiliates is also consistent
with the Congressional intent of section 254(g).
9. In the Rate Integration Reconsideration Order, we specified that
the current definitions of ``affiliate'' and ``control'' in section
32.9000 of the Commission's rules will be used to determine whether
companies are sufficiently related to require them to integrate their
rates. Thus, we required affiliates under common ownership and control
to integrate their rates. We observed that these definitions will
permit application of rate integration to closely related affiliates
while excluding those not under common control.
10. CMRS providers assert that the affiliation rule is unworkable
and could produce anticompetitive results. They state that CMRS
ownership arrangements are complicated, typically including partnership
arrangements among carriers that are often competitors in other
markets. Several CMRS providers assert that the current affiliation
requirement would force all related carriers to adopt identical rates
and rate structures, thereby preventing CMRS providers from responding
to competition and depriving customers of the benefits of pricing
flexibility and customer choice associated with the detariffed CMRS
environment.
11. A workable affiliation rule is essential to preclude CMRS
providers from evading the rate integration requirement of section
254(g) by the simple process of creating separate, affiliated companies
to serve different geographic areas. We recognize, however, that too
stringent an affiliation rule could be unworkable and adversely effect
pricing and customer choice, because of the complex nature of the CMRS
market. We invite parties to propose the appropriate affiliation
requirement. We request parties to address the following affiliation
standards: (1) fifty-one percent or greater ownership control; and (2)
eighty percent ownership control resulting in accounting on a
consolidated basis. Parties should discuss how positive or negative
control should affect the analysis. Parties also are asked to identify
CMRS providers serving Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories and
possessions that would be affected by different affiliation standards.
We invite parties to suggest other affiliation standards that they
believe are more workable. Finally, we seek comment on the nature of
the fiduciary duty owed by a controlling partner to its partners, how
that duty would be affected by application of the statutory
requirements of section 254(g), and how that duty should affect the
level of affiliation required to trigger rate integration requirements
in the CMRS industry.
12. We also seek comment on whether conditions in the CMRS market
warrant forbearance from application of the affiliation requirement
under section 10 of the Act. Parties should address how each element of
the forbearance standard is met. Finally, parties should address the
extent to which any affiliate standard they propose affects small
business entities, including new entrants.
C. Plans That Assess a Local Airtime or Roaming Charge Plus Separate
Long-Distance Charges for Interstate, Interexchange Services
13. In this section, we seek further comment on the effects of the
rate integration requirement of section 254(g) on the airtime or
roaming charges associated with interstate, interexchange calls for
which a separate long-distance charge is assessed. Airtime and roaming
charges may be viewed in one or more ways. For example, airtime and
roaming charges could be viewed as not interexchange in character and,
therefore, not subject to rate integration, if the charges do not vary
with the local or toll nature of the call. Alternatively, airtime and
roaming charges could be viewed as part of the price for the long-
distance call and, therefore, subject to the rate integration
requirement. We request comment on the legal and policy implications of
the alternatives described above. Parties also should discuss any
interrelationships with the definition of ``exchange'' and
``interexchange,'' discussed above in conjunction with the
consideration of wide-area calling plans.
14. The local airtime or roaming charge assessed for a purely local
call generally is the same as that assessed in connection with a toll
call. That charge may vary from calling area to calling area because of
differences in market conditions, just as exchange rates of incumbent
LECs may vary among exchanges. Traffic, which involves no interstate,
interexchange component, is not subject to rate integration. If airtime
and roaming charges are subjected to rate integration, CMRS providers
claim that they would be forced to assess the same airtime and roaming
charge in all locations. Several parties noted that such a requirement
could affect CMRS providers' ability to respond to competition or to
offer customers a variety of pricing options. We seek comment on the
ability of CMRS providers to impose separate, uniform airtime and
roaming charges when a call is an interstate, interexchange call. To
assist us in evaluating the implications of the application of rate
integration to airtime and roaming charges, parties should provide
detailed information on the percentage of calls and minutes that are
local in nature as opposed to the
[[Page 26929]]
percentage of calls and minutes that are toll.
15. CMRS providers state that airtime and roaming charges primarily
reflect local market conditions. They allege that costs do not vary as
widely as costs vary for exchange carriers, and that CMRS rates do not
include subsidies that support high exchange costs. We ask parties to
address the extent of any cost difference between the contiguous states
and Hawaii, Alaska, and the covered U.S. territories and possessions,
and to submit demonstrative evidence supporting their cost difference
data. Parties also should address the extent to which any options they
propose would affect small business entities, including new entrants.
16. Finally, we ask parties to comment on whether, if we determine
that airtime and roaming charges are properly part of an interstate,
interexchange call, we should forbear from applying the rate
integration requirement of section 254(g) to those airtime and roaming
charges. Parties urging forbearance should discuss the standards of
section 10 of the Act and how each element of the forbearance analysis
is met. Parties also should discuss the effect of the continued
applicability of sections 201, 202, and 208 on the forbearance
analysis. In particular, we ask parties to discuss the extent to which
those sections will protect consumers in a less than fully competitive
market.
D. Integration of Cellular and PCS Services
17. We invite parties to comment on whether the rates of cellular
and broadband PCS services should be integrated. Parties should discuss
any similarities or differences in the operation of cellular and PCS
networks, as well as customer perceptions of the two types of services.
Parties also are asked to suggest other similarities or differences
that should affect our decision as to whether cellular and PCS services
should be rate integrated. We invite parties to discuss the effect that
requiring these services to integrate their rates would have on the
intent, in part, that PCS service provide competition to cellular
service. In addition, we ask parties to comment on whether their
position differs if the CMRS provider uses an integrated cellular and
PCS network to provide a single CMRS service or if the CMRS provider
offers separate cellular and PCS services using distinct cellular and
PCS facilities. Finally, we invite parties to address the extent to
which a requirement to integrate the rates of cellular and PCS services
would affect small business entities, including new entrants.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Presentations
18. The Notice is a permit-but-disclose proceeding and is subject
to the permit-but-disclose requirements under 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as
revised. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain a summary of the
substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally required. See also 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
19. The Notice has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and does not contain new or
modified information collections subject to Office of Management and
Budget review.
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the proposals suggested in this Notice. The analysis is set forth at
the end of this summary. Written public comments are requested on the
IRFA. Comments and reply comments must be identified by a separate and
distinct heading as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or
before May 27, 1999 and June 28, 1999, respectively. Parties should
address the extent to which our proposals affect large and small CMRS
providers differently and how small business entities, including new
entrants, will be affected. The Commission's Office of Public Affairs,
Reference Operations Division, will send a copy of this Notice,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration, in accordance with the RFA. In addition, the
Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
D. Comment and Reply Comment Filing Dates and Procedures
21. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before
May 27, 1999, and reply comments on or before June 28, 1999. Comments
may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
22. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Only
one copy of the electronic submission must be filed. In completing the
transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal
Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should
send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, including ``get form '' in the body of the message. A sample form and directions
will be sent in reply.
23. Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the
Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth St., S.W., Room TW-A325,
Washington, DC 20554.
24. Parties that choose to file by paper should also submit their
comments on diskette. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch
diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1
for Windows or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied
by a cover letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The
diskette should be clearly labelled with the commenter's name,
proceeding (including the docket number in this case, CC Docket No. 96-
61); type of pleading (comment or reply comment); date of submission;
and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should
also include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each
diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a
single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette
copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.
IV. Ordering Clauses
25. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201-202,
254, 303(r) and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151-154, 201-202, 254, 303(r) and 403, that notice is hereby
given of the rulemaking described above and that comment is sought on
these issues.
26. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis,
[[Page 26930]]
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
27. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared this
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Notice. Written public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided above. The
Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
28. In the 1996 Act, Congress directed the Commission to develop
rules implementing the provisions of section 254(g) within six months
of its enactment. The Commission adopted broad rules implementing the
provisions of section 254(g) in the Rate Integration Order. In the
Notice, we seek comment on how the rate integration requirement of
section 254(g) should be applied to certain interstate, interexchange
offerings of CMRS providers. The objective is to develop rate
integration policies for CMRS providers that address the conditions in
the CMRS marketplace, while fulfilling the rate integration objective
of section 254(g).
B. Legal Basis
29. The proposed action is authorized by 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-
202, 254, 303(r) and 403.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
30. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
(a) Cellular Radio Telephone Service
31. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to cellular licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition
of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to
radiotelephone companies. This definition provides that a small entity
is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons.
According to the 1992 Census, which is the most recent information
available, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such
firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.
Therefore, even if all 12 of these large firms were cellular telephone
companies, all of the remainder were small businesses under the SBA's
definition. Although there are 1,758 cellular licenses, we do not know
the number of cellular licensees, since a cellular licensee may own
several licenses. We assume that, for purposes of our evaluations in
this IRFA, all of the current cellular licensees are small entities, as
that term is defined by the SBA.
(b) Broadband Personal Communications Service
32. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks
designated A through F. Pursuant to section 24.720(b) of the
Commission's Rules, the Commission has defined ``small entity'' for
Block C and Block F licensees as firms that had average gross revenues
of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. This
regulation defining ``small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS
auctions has been approved by the SBA.
33. The Commission has auctioned broadband PCS licenses in all of
its spectrum blocks A through F. We do not have sufficient data to
determine how many small businesses under the Commission's definition
bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. As of now, there are
90 non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as small entities in the
Block C auction and 93 non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as
small entities in the D, E, and F Block auctions. Based on this
information, we conclude that the number of broadband PCS licensees
that would be affected by the proposals in this Notice includes the 183
non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as small entities in the C,
D, E, and F Block broadband PCS auctions.
(c) Specialized Mobile Radio
34. Pursuant to section 90.814(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, the
Commission has defined ``small entity'' for geographic area 800 MHz and
900 MHz SMR licenses as firms that had average gross revenues of no
more than $15 million in the three previous calendar years. This
regulation defining ``small entity'' in the context of 800 MHz and 900
MHz SMR has been approved by the SBA.
35. The proposals set forth in the Notice may apply to SMR
providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many
firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service, nor how
many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15
million.
36. The Commission recently held auctions for geographic area
licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. There were 60 winning bidders who
qualified as small entities under the Commission's definition in the
900 MHz auction. Based on this information, we conclude that the number
of geographic area SMR licensees affected by the proposals set forth in
this Notice includes these 60 small entities.
37. A total of 525 licenses were auctioned for the upper 200
channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. There were 62
qualifying bidders, of which 52 were small businesses. The Commission
has not yet determined how many licenses will be awarded for the lower
230 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. There is no
basis to estimate, moreover, how many small entities within the SBA's
definition will win these lower channel licenses. We assume that, for
purposes of our evaluations in this IRFA, all of the current
specialized mobile radio licensees are small entities, as that term is
defined by the SBA.
(d) 220 MHz Service
38. The Commission has classified providers of 220 MHz service into
Phase I and Phase II licensees. There are approximately 2,800 non-
nationwide Phase I licensees and 4 nationwide licensees currently
authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission recently
conducted the Phase II auction. There were 54 qualified bidders, of
which 47 were small businesses.
39. At this time, however, there is no basis upon which to estimate
definitively the number of phase I 220 MHz service licensees that are
small businesses. To estimate the number of such entities that are
small businesses, we apply the definition of a small entity under SBA
rules applicable to radiotelephone companies. This definition provides
that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing
[[Page 26931]]
no more than 1,500 persons. According to the 1992 Census, which is the
most recent information available, only 12 out of a total 1,178
radiotelephone firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more
employees--and these may or may not be small entities, depending on
whether they employed no more than 1,500 employees. But 1,166
radiotelephone firms had fewer than 1,000 employees and therefore,
under the SBA definition, are small entities. However, we do not know
how many of these 1,166 firms are likely to be involved in the phase I
220 MHz service.
(e) Mobile Satellite Services (MSS)
40. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to licensees in the international services. Therefore, the
applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA
rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified
(NEC). This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one
with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts. According to the Census
Bureau, there were a total of 848 communications services, NEC in
operation in 1992, and a total of 775 had annual receipts of less than
$9.999 million.
41. Mobile Satellite Services or Mobile Satellite Earth Stations
are intended to be used while in motion or during halts at unspecified
points. These stations operate as part of a network that includes a
fixed hub or stations. The stations that are capable of transmitting
while a platform is moving are included under section 20.7(c) of the
Commission's Rules as mobile services within the meaning of sections
3(27) and 332 of the Communications Act. Those MSS services are treated
as CMRS if they connect to the Public Switched Network (PSN) and also
satisfy other criteria of section 332. Facilities provided through a
transportable platform that cannot move when the communications service
is offered are excluded from section 20.7(c).
42. The MSS networks may provide a variety of land, maritime and
aeronautical voice and data services. There are eight mobile satellite
licensees. At this time, we are unable to make a precise estimate of
the number of small businesses that are mobile satellite earth station
licensees.
(f) Paging Services
43. The Commission has adopted a two-tier definition of small
businesses in the context of auctioning licenses in the paging service.
A small business is defined as either (1) a entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
for the three preceding years of not more than $3 million; or (2) an
entity that, together with affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of not
more than $15 million. The SBA has approved this definition for paging
companies.
44. The Commission estimates that the total current number of
paging carriers is approximately 600. In addition, the Commission
anticipates that a total of 16,630 non-nationwide geographic area
licenses will be granted or auctioned. The geographic area licenses
will consist of 2,550 Major Trading Area (MTA) licenses and 14,080
Economic Area (EA) licenses. In addition to the 47 Rand McNally MTAs,
the Commission is licensing Alaska as a separate MTA and adding three
MTAs for the U.S. territories, for a total of 51 MTAs. No auctions of
paging licenses have been held yet, and there is no basis to determine
the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities. Given
the fact that no reliable estimate of the number of paging licensees
can be made, we assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the
current licensees and the 16,630 geographic area paging licensees
either are or will consist of small entities, as that term is defined
by the SBA.
(g) Narrowband PCS
45. The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional licenses
for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have sufficient information
to determine whether any of these licensees are small businesses within
the SBA-approved definition. At present, there have been no auctions
held for the MTA and Basic Trading Area (BTA) narrowband PCS licenses.
The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licensees and 2,958 BTA
licensees will be awarded in the auctions. Those auctions, however,
have not yet been scheduled. Given that nearly all radiotelephone
companies have fewer than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate
of the number of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be
made, we assume, that all of the licensees will be awarded to small
entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.
(h) Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service
46. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small business
specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, which is defined in
section 22.99 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we will use the
SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately
100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate
that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA definition.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
47. We project that any rules adopted in response to the Notice
will impose no significant new reporting or recordkeeping requirements
on CMRS providers. CMRS providers will, of course, have to comply with
any rate integration requirements that may be adopted in a final order.
As part of that requirement, they may have to integrate their rates
with those of specified affiliates.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
48. Throughout this Notice, we seek comment on the impact of the
proposals in the Notice on small entities. We also seek comment on
whether we should forbear from applying any of the rate integration
requirements on which comment is sought to CMRS providers.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
49. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-12410 Filed 5-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
