Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 72773 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright. 

Proposed Regulations 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Copyright Office proposes to amend part 

201 of 37 CFR, as follows: 

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 201 

reads as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702; Section 201.10 

also issued under 17 U.S.C. 203 and 304. 

2. Amend § 201.10 by revising 

paragraph (f)(4) as follows: 

§ 201.10 Notices of termination of 

transfers and licenses. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) Notwithstanding anything to the 

contrary in this section, the Copyright 

Office reserves the right to refuse 

recordation of a notice of termination as 

such if, in the judgment of the Copyright 

Office, such notice of termination is 

untimely. Conditions under which a 

notice of termination will be considered 

untimely include: the date of execution 

stated therein does not fall on or after 

January 1, 1978, as required by section 

203(a) of title 17, United States Code; 

the effective date of termination does 

not fall within the five-year period 

described in section 203(a)(3) of title 17, 

United States Code; or the documents 

submitted indicate that the notice of 

termination was served less than two or 

more than ten years before the effective 

date of termination. If a notice of 

termination is untimely or if a 

document is submitted for recordation 

as a notice of termination on or after the 

effective date of termination, the Office 

will offer to record the document as a 

‘‘document pertaining to copyright’’ 

pursuant to § 201.4(c)(3), but the Office 

will not index the document as a notice 

of termination. Any dispute as to 

whether a document so recorded is 

sufficient in any instance to effect 

termination as a matter of law shall be 

determined by a court of competent 

jurisdiction. 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 19, 2010. 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29743 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 10–207 and 09–158; FCC 

10–180] 

Empowering Consumers to Avoid Bill 

Shock; Consumer Information and 

Disclosure 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes rules that would 

require mobile service providers to 

provide usage alerts and information 

that will assist consumers in avoiding 

unexpected charges on their bills. The 

Commission believes its proposals will 

allow consumers to understand the 

costs associated with use of their mobile 

service plans and take advantage of 

safeguards against bill shock by 

providing them with timely information 

to better manage those costs and thereby 

avoid incurring unexpected charges on 

their bills. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

December 27, 2010. Reply comments are 

due on or before January 25, 2011. 

Written comments on the proposed 

information collection requirements, 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (PRA), 

should be submitted on or before 

January 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by [CG Docket No. 10–207], 

by any of the following methods: 

fi Electronic Filers: Comments may 

be filed electronically using the Internet 

by accessing the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS) http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site for submitting comments and 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

filing to each docket number referenced 

in the caption, which in this case is CG 

Docket No. 10–207. For ECFS filers, in 

completing the transmittal screen, filers 

should include their full name, U.S. 

Postal Service mailing address, and the 

applicable docket number. 

Parties may also submit an electronic 

comment by Internet e-mail. To get 

filing instructions, filers should send an 

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and 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 response. 

fi Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. Because two 

docket numbers appear in the caption of 

this proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for the additional 

docket number. In addition, parties 

must send one copy to the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or 

via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com. Filings 

can be sent by hand or messenger 

delivery, by commercial overnight 

courier, or by first-class or overnight 

U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings 

must be addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

fi All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

fi 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 firstclass, Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

In addition, document FCC 10–180 

contains proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

PRA. It will be submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507 of the PRA. 

OMB, the general public, and other 

Federal agencies are invited to comment 

on the proposed information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document. PRA comments should be 

submitted to Cathy Williams, Federal 

Communications Commission via e-mail 

at PRA@fcc.gov and 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov, and to 

Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via fax at 

(202) 395–5167, or via e-mail to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard D. Smith, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Policy 

Division, at (717) 338–2797 (voice), or email Richard.Smith@fcc.gov. 

For additional information concerning 

the PRA information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, contact Cathy Williams, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

at (202) 418–2918, or via e-mail 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
72774 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Empowering Consumers to Avoid Bill 

Shock; Consumer Information and 

Disclosure, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), document FCC 

10–180, adopted and released on 

October 14, 2010, in CG Docket Nos. 10– 

207 and 09–158. The full text of 

document FCC 10–180 and copies of 

any subsequently filed documents in 

this matter will be available for public 

inspection and copying via ECFS, and 

during regular business hours at the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. They 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 

378–3160, fax: (202) 488–5563, or 

Internet: http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

Document FCC 10–180 can also be 

downloaded in Word or Portable 

Document Format (PDF) at http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). To view a copy of this 

information collection request (ICR) 

submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web 

page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the 

Web page called ‘‘Currently Under 

Review,’’ (3) click on the downwardpointing arrow in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ 

box below the ‘‘Currently Under 

Review’’ heading, (4) select ‘‘Federal 

Communications Commission’’ from the 

list of agencies presented in the ‘‘Select 

Agency’’ box, (5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ 

button to the right of the ‘‘Select 

Agency’’ box, (6) when the list of FCC 

ICRs currently under review appears, 

look for the OMB control number of this 

ICR and then click on the ICR Reference 

Number. A copy of the FCC submission 

to OMB will be displayed. 

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq., this 

matter shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance with 

the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substances of the presentations 

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. Other rules pertaining to oral 

and written ex parte presentations in 

permit-but-disclose proceedings are set 

forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

OMB to comment on the proposed 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the PRA. Public and agency 

comments are due January 25, 2011. 

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. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it may 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

OMB Control Number: 3060–XXXX. 

Title: Empowering Consumers to 

Avoid Bill Shock; Consumer 

Information and Disclosure, CG Docket 

Nos. 10–207 and 09–158. 

Form No.: N/A. 

Type of Review: New collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 1,500 respondents and 3,000 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 40 to 

100 hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement; Third party 

disclosure requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority for these proposed 

information collections is found at 

sections 1–2, 4, 201, 258, 301, 303, 332, 

and 403 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended. 

Total Annual Burden: 210,000 hours. 

Total Annual Costs: $10,000,000. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

An assurance of confidentiality is not 

offered because this information 

collection does not require the 

collection of personally identifiable 

information from individuals. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: In document FCC 

10–180, the Commission proposes rules 

that would require mobile service 

providers to provide usage alerts, such 

as voice or text messages, to subscribers 

when they are approaching or reach an 

allotted limit of voice, text or data usage 

or are incurring international or roaming 

charges. In addition, the Commission 

proposes that mobile service providers 

make clear and ongoing disclosure of 

any tools they offer which allow 

subscribers to set usage limits or 

monitor usage balances. The provision 

of this information in a timely and 

easily accessible manner will allow 

consumers to avoid incurring sudden, 

unexpected charges on their wireless 

bills. 

Synopsis 

In document FCC 10–180, the 

Commission proposes that mobile 

providers actively provide consumers 

with notification messages to assist 

them in managing the costs of using 

their service and ensure that subscribers 

are not shocked by overage or roaming 

charges. Specifically, the Commission 

proposes that mobile providers provide 

notification when a subscriber is 

approaching their plan’s allotted limit 

for voice, text, or data usage. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

such notifications should be provided in 

‘‘real time,’’ including any technical 

limitations or other considerations that 

should be taken into consideration 

when reviewing this issue. How should 

such notifications be provided in the 

case of multi-line family plans? The 

Commission seeks comment on the most 

effective way to provide this notification 

to consumers, including methods such 

as providing voice or text alerts. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether we should 

establish a precise usage level at which 

this initial notification message would 

be triggered. In reviewing this issue, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

utility of providing multiple usage alerts 

to the consumer against the potential 

burdens to the wireless providers— 

particularly smaller providers—who 

must supply them. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether there are 

aspects of the existing usage alert 

systems or other tools that have proven 

particularly helpful to consumers in 

avoiding bill shock that it should 

consider incorporating in any rule it 

adopts to reduce bill shock. 

Alternatively, are there aspects of those 

tools that have reduced their 

effectiveness for consumers and should 

not be adopted? The Commission also 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 72775 

seeks comment on what it can learn 

from the experience with bill shock 

regulation in the European Union. 

In addition, the Commission proposes 

that mobile providers supply a 

notification message to consumers once 

they reach their monthly allotment limit 

and begin incurring overage charges. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it is sufficient to notify 

consumers that they have begun 

incurring overage charges or whether 

specific cost information and cut off 

mechanisms such as these would also 

be useful to consumers or create 

additional challenges. In that regard, the 

Commission seeks to balance consumer 

protections and expectations with the 

costs and technical limitations that 

might arise by imposing any additional 

requirements. In this regard, are there 

concerns or issues the Commission 

should consider with respect to smaller, 

regional and/or rural mobile providers? 

Moreover, the Commission does not 

intend for any alert system to hamper 

the ability of consumers to complete 

critical voice or data communications 

such as access to E911, and seeks 

comment on how to avoid such effects. 

In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether consumers should 

be allowed to opt-out if they determine 

that they do not want to receive these 

mandatory usage alerts from their 

mobile service provider. 

Similarly, the Commission proposes 

that mobile service providers supply a 

notification message to consumers when 

they are about to incur international or 

other roaming charges in excess of their 

normal rates. The Commission seeks 

comment on the technical feasibility of 

providing such international alerts, 

including whether such alerts require, 

in any way, the international provider’s 

cooperation or any changes to its 

network. How often should such 

international alerts be provided? For 

example, should an alert be provided 

every time a consumer is about to incur 

international roaming charges? Should 

the Commission also require mobile 

providers to better disclose how to turn 

off any mobile device function that 

cause them to incur roaming charges? 

Several industry commenters contend 

that domestic roaming in the United 

States presents fewer difficulties to 

consumers because there is little or no 

domestic roaming for many subscribers. 

To what extent, if any, should this factor 

into our analysis? For example, should 

any roaming notification requirement be 

limited to international situations? Or 

should notification also be required for 

regional providers that use partners for 

domestic roaming? In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

such notifications should include the 

applicable rates and associated charges 

for international or roaming charges, 

including any technical limitations— 

particularly for smaller providers—of 

providing this level of information in 

real time. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the length of time that would be 

required for mobile providers to 

implement any such usage alert 

requirement based upon a proposal that 

requires providers to notify subscribers 

when they are approaching and then 

reach the 100 percent threshold mark of 

their monthly usage allotment. Based on 

the comments received in response to 

the Bill Shock PN, published at 75 FR 

28249, May 20, 2010, it may be easier 

for the national providers to start 

providing alerts. As a result, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

there are concerns, issues or cost 

considerations to implement such usage 

alerts that it should consider with 

respect to smaller, regional and/or rural 

mobile providers. Is there a need for 

varying implementation schedules 

between the larger and smaller, regional 

and/or rural providers to alleviate the 

burden for smaller providers? If so, what 

are the exact timeframes by which 

providers could modify their existing 

systems to comply with this 

requirement? Alternatively, should the 

Commission consider exempting 

smaller, regional and/or rural providers 

from any usage alert or roaming 

requirement due to the costs such a 

requirement might impose on them? If 

so, what size providers should this 

exemption apply to? 

Methods for Reviewing and Capping 

Usage 

The Commission proposes that mobile 

providers make clear, conspicuous and 

ongoing disclosure of any tools they 

offer which allow subscribers to either 

limit usage or monitor usage history. 

The Commission seeks additional 

information about the methods available 

for monitoring usage balances and ways 

to limit usage available to subscribers of 

smaller, regional, and rural mobile 

providers. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on the best methods to 

ensure that consumers are made aware 

of the available tools for monitoring 

usage balances and limiting usage, how 

to access these tools and any applicable 

charges. For example, should mobile 

providers be required to provide this 

information on their bills or in annual 

bill inserts? What would be the most 

cost effective way to better ensure that 

consumers have access to this 

information and make full use of the 

currently available tools that can protect 

subscribers from bill shock? In 

particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on these issues as they relate 

to consumers with disabilities. What is 

the best method to minimize costs for 

smaller, regional and/or rural mobile 

providers while ensuring their 

customers have access to this 

information? The Commission seeks 

comment on how effective the existing 

usage controls have been in helping 

consumers avoid bill shock. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

extent to which the effectiveness of 

usage controls is impacted by the 

conditions under which they are 

provided to consumers. To the extent 

that existing usage control tools have 

proven effective in addressing bill 

shock, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether it should explore the 

possibility of mandating that all mobile 

service providers offer consumers the 

means to set their own usage limits. For 

example, should consumers be allowed 

to cap their usage in advance at a level 

specified by the customer (either for 

individual users or the entire account) 

or allowed to opt-out entirely of certain 

services (e.g. text messages) so that they 

cannot incur charges for any service that 

they don’t want. Would such a 

requirement be overly burdensome for 

smaller, regional and rural providers? 

Prepaid Services 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether prepaid mobile services should 

be exempt from any usage alert 

requirements that might evolve from 

this proceeding to address consumer bill 

shock. Prepaid services include 

traditional, pay-as-you-go services, in 

which customers buy minutes ahead of 

time on a card, as well as unlimited 

prepaid services, in which customers 

pay in advance for unlimited voice and/ 

or data services each month with no 

long-term contract. The Commission 

seeks comment on these analyses, 

including those situations in which 

prepaid service users might benefit from 

receiving usage alerts. The Commission 

asks that parties distinguish between 

traditional, pay-as-you-go and unlimited 

prepaid services in their comments. 

Scope of Covered Entities and Services 

and Legal Authority 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the types of wireless services that 

should be covered by our proposals. 

Should any rules the Commission 

adopts apply to all communications 

services provided by mobile wireless 

providers, including voice, text, and 

data services? Should providers of 

mobile data services that do not also 

offer Commercial Mobile Radio Service 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
72776 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(CMRS) be included? Although mobile 

data services may be provided by 

companies that are also CMRS carriers, 

such services may also be provided by 

entities that do not offer any CMRS. 

Therefore, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the scope of 

covered entities should be broader than 

CMRS providers. On the other hand, are 

there services for which these rules are 

not necessary? 

Next, the Commission seeks comment 

on the best sources of authority for the 

Commission to adopt bill shock related 

obligations for the different types of 

mobile wireless services. Several 

provisions of Title III provide the 

Commission authority to establish 

license conditions in the public interest. 

In addition, to the extent that some of 

the mobile services covered by the rules 

promulgated in this proceeding are 

common carrier or telecommunications 

services, what other provisions of the 

Act, in Title II or elsewhere, would 

provide the Commission additional 

authority to impose bill shock-related 

obligations? What other authorityrelated issues should the Commission 

consider? 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

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 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in 

document FCC 10–180. 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 

document FCC 10–180 provided on the 

first page of this document. The 

Commission will send a copy of 

document FCC 10–180, including this 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

In document FCC 10–180, the 

Commission summarized the record 

compiled in response to the Consumer 

Information NOI and Bill Shock PN 

indicating that mobile consumers 

receive inadequate usage-related 

information to manage the costs 

associated with their mobile service 

plans. Recent reports from both GAO 

and the Better Business Bureau confirm 

that wireless consumers continue to 

experience problems with unexpected 

charges appearing on their bills. In 

many cases, these charges result from 

consumers unknowingly exceeding a 

monthly allotment limit and incurring 

substantial overage charges. These 

charges can result in significant 

expenditures of time, effort, and money 

for more than 270 million American 

consumers that use mobile services. In 

the document FCC 10–180, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

proposals designed to empower 

consumers to avoid bill shock by 

ensuring that they receive baseline 

information about their monthly usage 

balances in a timely and consistent 

manner to make informed decisions 

regarding the costs associated with their 

mobile service. 

Legal Basis 

The legal basis for any action that may 

be taken pursuant to document FCC 10– 

180 is contained in sections 1–2, 4, 201, 

258, 301, 303, 332 and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended 47 U.S.C. 151–152, 154, 201, 

258, 301, 303, 332 and 403. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rules Will Apply 

The RFA directs agencies to provide 

a description of, and where feasible, an 

estimate of the number of small entities 

that will be affected by the proposed 

rules, if adopted. The RFA 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. 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). 

Nationwide, there are a total of 

approximately 29.6 million small 

businesses, according to the SBA. The 

document FCC 10–180 seeks comment 

generally on mobile providers of voice, 

text and data services. However, as 

noted in section IV of the document 

FCC 10–180, the Commission is seeking 

comment on the scope of entities that 

should be covered by the proposals 

contained therein. 

Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, 

the Census Bureau has placed wireless 

firms within this new, broad, economic 

census category. Prior to that time, such 

firms were within the now-superseded 

categories of ‘‘Paging’’ and ‘‘Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications.’’ 

Under the present and prior categories, 

the SBA has deemed a wireless business 

to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Because Census Bureau data 

are not yet available for the new 

category, the Commission will estimate 

small business prevalence using the 

prior categories and associated data. For 

the category of Paging, data for 2002 

show that there were 807 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 804 firms had employment of 999 

or fewer employees, and three firms had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. For the category of Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications, 

data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of this total, 1,378 firms had 

employment of 999 or fewer employees, 

and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 

employees or more. Thus, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of wireless firms are small. 

Wireless Telephony. Wireless 

telephony includes cellular, personal 

communications services, and 

specialized mobile radio telephony 

carriers. As noted, the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). Under the SBA small business 

size standard, a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to FCC data, 434 carriers 

report that they are engaged in wireless 

telephony. Of these, an estimated 222 

have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 212 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Therefore, the Commission estimates 

that 222 of these entities can be 

considered small. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

In document FCC 10–180, the 

Commission proposes requirements that 

would require mobile service providers 

to offer notification alerts to consumers 

regarding their usage balances. 

Specifically, the Commission proposes 

that mobile service providers offer 

notification alerts to consumers when: 

(1) Subscribers are approaching their 

plan’s allotted limit for voice, text, and 

data usage; (2) subscribers have reached 

their monthly allotment limit and begin 

incurring overage charges for any 

subsequent use of that service and (3) 

subscribers will incur international or 

roaming charges not covered under their 

monthly plans. In addition, the 

Commission proposes that mobile 

service providers shall make ongoing 

disclosure of any tools or services they 

offer which allow subscribers to set 

usage limits or monitor usage balances 

including any applicable charges for 

those services. Many mobile service 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 72777 

providers already offer some of these 

services. However, mobile service 

providers may have to review and adjust 

their current alert systems to ensure 

compliance with these requirements. In 

addition, the Commission’s proposed 

rules may require mobile providers to 

include information regarding how to 

request and use any usage controls and 

monitoring tools that they currently 

offer in the service providers’ bills or in 

annual bill inserts. This would 

necessitate providing additional 

information to consumers via the 

monthly bill or an annual bill insert. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

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. 

In document FCC 10–180, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

costs for small providers to implement 

usage alerts including whether there is 

a need for varying implementation 

schedules between the larger and 

smaller providers to alleviate the burden 

for smaller providers. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should consider 

exempting the smaller providers from 

any usage alert or roaming notification 

requirement due to the costs such a 

requirement might impose on them. In 

reviewing the frequency of mandatory 

usage alerts, the Commission seeks 

comment on the utility of providing 

multiple usage alerts to the consumer 

against the potential burdens to the 

wireless providers particularly smaller 

providers—who must supply them. 

Finally, the Commission seeks comment 

on the best methods to minimize costs 

for smaller, regional and/or rural mobile 

providers while ensuring their 

customers have access to information 

relating to any methods to monitor or 

set limits on usage offered by their 

service provider. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

Ordering Clauses 

Pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1–2, 4, 201, 258, 301, 303, 332 

and 403 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–152, 

154, 201, 258, 301, 303, 332 and 403, 

document FCC 10–180 is adopted. 

The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

document FCC 10–180, including the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telecommunications, 

Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 64 as follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 

56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 

225, 226, 228 and 254(k) unless otherwise 

noted. 

1. § 64.2402 is added to subpart Y to 

read as follows: 

§ 64.2402 Usage alerts and information for 

mobile services. 

(a) This section shall apply to 

providers of mobile services as defined 

in paragraph (b) of this section. The 

purpose of this section is to require 

mobile service providers to provide 

consumers with timely, baseline 

information relating to their monthly 

usage so that consumers can avoid 

unexpected overage charges. 

(b) [Reserved]. 

(c) Usage notifications. Mobile service 

providers shall provide notification 

alerts when: 

(1) Subscribers are approaching an 

allotted limit for voice, text, and data 

usage. 

(2) Subscribers have reached their 

monthly allotment limit and begin 

incurring overage charges for any 

subsequent use of that service. 

(3) Subscribers will incur 

international or roaming charges that are 

not covered by their monthly plans, and 

notification if they will be charged at 

higher than normal rates. 

(d) Mobile service providers shall 

make clear, conspicuous, and ongoing 

disclosure of any tools or services they 

offer which allow subscribers to set 

usage limits or monitor usage balances, 

including any applicable charges for 

those services. This information should 

be made available in a manner that is 

accessible to and usable by consumers 

with disabilities, in accordance with 

section 716 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended (Act), and the 

Commission’s rules implementing 

sections 255 and 716 of the Act. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29669 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 212, 227, 246, and 252 

RIN 0750–AG62 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Patents, Data, 

and Copyrights (DFARS Case 2010– 

D001) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense. 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments; extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

update text on patents, data, and 

copyrights. The comment period is 

being extended an additional 30 days to 

provide additional time for interested 

parties to review the proposed DFARS 

changes. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted to the address 

shown below on or before December 27, 

2010, to be considered in the 

formulation of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by DFARS Case 2010–D001, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Submit comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking portal by inputting 

‘‘DFARS Case 2010–D001’’ under the 

heading ‘‘Enter keyword or ID’’ and 

selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the link 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds 

with ‘‘DFARS Case 2010–D001.’’ Follow 

the instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS