25450 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

be appropriate, to make such summary

distribution decisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles E. Breece, Deputy Director,

Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S.

Department of the Interior, 4015 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Telephone: 703/235–3810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

technical amendment is being published

pursuant to the revised High Level

Implementation Plan (HLIP) filed with

the U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia in connection with the Cobell

v. Babbitt case. Among other

representations in the HLIP, the

Department of the Interior has

committed to making a technical

amendment to the summary distribution

regulations at 43 CFR 4.271. The

Department has further committed to

promulgate this technical amendment

by April 30, 2000. The technical

amendments to sections 4.271 and 4.320

of 43 CFR do not impact the substance

of the regulations but increase the

flexibility of the Department to direct

resources as appropriate to the caseload

of pending summary distribution cases.

Consequently, the technical amendment

acknowledges the authority of the BIA

to delegate its authority to make such

summary distribution decision to other

BIA officials as deemed qualified to

perform this function. Pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 553(b), public comment is not

required for this technical amendment

as this amendment does not make any

substantive regulatory change and

simply promotes administrative

efficiency. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d),

the rulemaking will take effect

immediately for good cause as the

caseload of the BIA for summary

distribution of Indian decedents’ estates

and the HLIP require, as may be

appropriate, the delegation of certain

other qualified officials of the BIA other

than its agency superintendents.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 4

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Indians, Public

lands.

PART 4—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 4

continues to read as follows:

Authority: R.S. 2478, as amended, 43

U.S.C. sec. 1201, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 4.271 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 4.271 Summary distribution.

When an Indian dies intestate leaving

only trust personal property or cash of

a value of less than $5,000, not

including any interest that may have

accrued after the death of the decedent,

the Bureau of Indian Affairs will

assemble the apparent heirs and hold an

informal hearing to determine the

proper distribution of the estate, unless

it appears that the decedent left a last

will and testament intending to devise

his estate, and/or the decedent dies

possessed of an interest in trust or

restricted real property. A memorandum

covering the hearing will be retained in

the agency files showing the date of the

decedent’s death, the date of the

hearing, the persons notified and

attending the hearing, the amount on

hand, and its disposition. In the

disposition of such funds, the Bureau of

Indian Affairs will credit the balance, if

any, to the legal heirs. When requested

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an

administrative law judge may assume

jurisdiction to dispose of creditors’

claims or to make distribution

determinations if the administrative law

judge finds that exceptional

circumstances exist. A party in interest

may appeal a distribution determination

in accordance with 43 CFR 4.320.

3. Section 4.320 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 4.320 Who may appeal.

A party in interest has a right to

appeal to the Board of Indian Appeals

from an order from an administrative

law judge on a petition for rehearing,

petition for reopening, or regarding

tribal purchase of interests in a deceased

Indian’s trust estate, and also from a

summary distribution order made by the

Bureau of Indian Affairs or an

administrative law judge pursuant to

§ 4.271.

* * * * *

Dated: April 26, 2000.

John Berry,

Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and

Budget.

[FR Doc. 00–10869 Filed 5–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–RK–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 22

[PR Docket No. 92–115; FCC 00–131]

Revision of the Commission’s Rules

Governing the Public Mobile Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; dismissal.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission dismisses in part, and

grants in part thirty-seven petitions for

reconsideration filed against an earlier

Federal Communications Commission

(Commission) order. The Commission

also dismisses a petition for declaratory

ruling filed by Graceba Total

Communications, Inc. (Graceba)

regarding Basic Exchange Telephone

Radio Systems (BETRS). These actions

are taken because most of the issues

raised on reconsideration have either

been resolved or rendered moot by the

transition to geographic area licensing

in the paging services. The other issues

were rendered moot by the Universal

Licensing System (ULS) proceeding

which streamlined the application,

assignment, and transfer processes

according to the Commission’s rules to

facilitate the development and use of

the ULS. The Commission also grants

various petitions because any

disadvantages to permitting shared use

are outweighed by the cost efficiencies

to licensees and creates a potential cost

savings to the public. With regards to

the Graceba petition, this action was

taken because the issue was resolved in

a previous Commission order.

DATES: Effective May 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don

Johnson, Policy and Rules Branch,

Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202)

418–7444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 92–

115, adopted April 6, 2000 and released

April 17, 2000 is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,

Washington D.C. The complete text may

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th

Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20036

(202) 857–3800. The document is also

available via the internet at http://

www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/

2000/index2.html.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Reconsideration: In

(MO&O on Reconsideration), the

Commission disposes of 37 petitions for

reconsideration (petitions) regarding

various issues addressed in the Part 22

Rewrite Order. We grant various

petitions to the extent they seek

reconsideration of our policy

prohibiting the use of shared

transmitters by Part 22 licensees. With

respect to all other issues addressed, we

dismiss or deny the petitions.

Additionally, we dismiss a petition for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25451

declaratory ruling filed by Graceba Total

Communications, Inc. (Graceba)

regarding Basic Exchange Telephone

Radio Systems (BETRS).

1. In this MO&O on Reconsideration,

the Commission disposes of 37 petitions

for reconsideration (petitions) regarding

various issues addressed in the Part 22

Rewrite Order, 60 FR 3555 (1995). We

grant various petitions to the extent they

seek reconsideration of our policy

prohibiting the use of shared

transmitters by Part 22 licensees. With

respect to all other issues addressed, we

dismiss or deny the petitions.

Additionally, we dismiss a petition for

declaratory ruling filed by Graceba Total

Communications, Inc. (Graceba)

regarding Basic Exchange Telephone

Radio Systems (BETRS).

Discussion

2. Most of the issues raised on

reconsideration of the Part 22 Rewrite

Order have either been resolved in or

rendered moot by subsequent

proceedings. For example, several

parties raised issues relating to site-bysite licensing of paging systems. These

issues have been rendered moot by the

transition to geographic area licensing

in the paging services. Other licensing

issues were addressed in or rendered

moot by the Universal Licensing System

Proceeding in which we streamlined our

application and assignment and transfer

processes for Part 22 licenses. To the

extent the issues have not been

effectively addressed elsewhere, except

as discussed, in this section, the

petitions raise a variety of minor issues

involving procedural requirements and

operational rules affecting Part 22

licensees. We find these arguments

unpersuasive, and in many respects

they only repeat arguments that we

considered and rejected previously in

this proceeding. Nothing in the record

as it now stands warrants alteration of

any decisions addressed in the

petitions, except for the reversal of our

policy regarding the use of shared

transmitters by Part 22 licensees.

3. We note in particular that several

petitioners seek reconsideration of the

rule requiring cellular mobile

transmitters to have a unique and

unalterable Electronic Serial Number

(ESN). Petitioners argue generally that

this rule unnecessarily restricts

legitimate activities and that it is not the

most effective method of combating

fraud. Since the record in this

proceeding was compiled in 1994, antifraud practices, technologies and the

market for cellular services have

changed considerably, and in addition,

Congress has passed potentially relevant

legislation. We therefore find that the

current record is not useful for

evaluating the continued need for or

appropriate form of the cellular ESN

rule. We further conclude that nothing

in the Part 22 Rewrite Order improperly

adjudicated the rights of parties under

the preexisting cellular system

compatibility rule in violation of the

Administrative Procedure Act, and that

nothing in our discussion of cellular

ESNs was improperly based on

undisclosed ex parte contacts. We

therefore deny the petitions relating to

the cellular ESN rule. We will, however,

review the cellular ESN rule as part of

our upcoming biennial review of

regulations affecting providers of

telecommunications services.

4. Several petitioners also seek

reconsideration of the uncodified policy

stated in paragraph 71 of the Part 22

Rewrite Order, which prohibits the use

of shared transmitters by Part 22

licensees. On January 10, 1995, before

the Part 22 Rewrite Order became

effective, the Commission stayed the

policy prohibiting the use of shared

transmitters. In the Part 22 Rewrite

Order, the Commission prohibited the

use of shared transmitters because it

was concerned about issues regarding

the control and responsibility for these

transmitters, and because it was

concerned that outages of shared

transmitters would cause broad service

disruptions. In the Stay Order, 60 FR

3555 (January 18, 1995), the

Commission recognized that it had

previously allowed dual licensing of

Part 22 transmitters and was continuing

to allow dual licensing in the part 90

private paging services, and that its new

policy could result in inconsistent

treatment of similar services. In

addition, the Commission noted that

outages are more likely to be detected

and corrected if a transmitter is used by

multiple licensees. The Stay Order has

remained in effect for approximately

five years. In light of the apparent lack

of problems with the use of shared

transmitters in the Part 22 and Part 90

services to date, we conclude that any

disadvantages to permitting shared use

are outweighed by the cost efficiencies

to Part 22 licensees and potential cost

savings to the public. Therefore, we

grant the various petitions to the extent

they seek reconsideration of this policy,

lift the stay, and reverse the uncodified

policy prohibiting the shared use of

transmitters.

5. On December 19, 1994, Graceba

filed a request for declaratory ruling

(request) regarding Basic Exchange

Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS).

Graceba requests that the Commission

specify the required grade of service in

evaluating BETRS applications. We

have dealt extensively with BETRS

issues in the Paging Systems

Reconsideration Order. Therefore,

pursuant to our discretion under § 1.2 of

the Commission’s rules, we decline to

issue a declaratory ruling and we

dismiss Graceba’s request.

Procedural Matters

6. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Analysis. The policy changes adopted in

this MO&O on Reconsideration have

been analyzed with respect to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the

‘‘1995 Act’’) and impose no new or

modified information collection

requirements on the public.

7. Supplemental Final Regulatory

Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended

(RFA) requires that a final regulatory

flexibility analysis be prepared for

notice-and-comment rulemaking

proceedings, unless the agency certifies

that ‘‘the rule will not, if promulgated,

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.’’

The RFA generally defines ‘‘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). We certify that

the policy change adopted in this

MO&O on Reconsideration will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small business

entities because the previous policy was

never enforced or codified in the

Commission’s rules.

Ordering Clauses

8. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) and

405 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),154(j),

and 405, and section 1.106, of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.106, the

petitions for reconsideration of the Part

22 Rewrite Order are granted to the

extent they seek reconsideration of the

Commission’s policy prohibiting the use

of shared transmitters by Part 22

licensees, the Stay Order IS LIFTED,

and the policy is reversed.

9. The petitions for reconsideration of

the Part 22 Rewrite Order are in all other

respects dismissed or denied.

10. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and

4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),154(j),

and section 1.2 of the Commission’s

25452 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

rules, 47 CFR 1.2, the Petition for

Declaratory Ruling filed by Graceba

Total Communications, Inc. IS

DISMISSED.

11. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, SHALL SEND a

copy of this Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration, including the

Supplemental Final Regulatory

Flexibility Certification, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

12. For additional information

concerning this matter, contact Don

Johnson (202–418–7240), Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau,

Commercial Wireless Division, Policy

and Rules Branch.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–10843 Filed 5–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 24

[WT Docket No. 96–148 and GN Docket No.

96–113; FCC 00–88]

Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum

Disaggregation by Commercial Mobile

Radio Services Licensees and the

Implementation of the

Communications Act—Elimination of

Market Entry Barriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; dismissal of

petitions.

SUMMARY: This document dismisses the

petitions filed by the National

Telephone Cooperative Association

(NTCA) and Omnipoint Corporation

(Omnipoint) requesting reconsideration

of a previous Commission decision that:

eliminated the restriction permitting

partitioning only to rural telephone

companies; prohibited entrepreneur

block licensees from swapping spectrum

blocks with non-entrepreneur block

licensees in the same geographic

market; and required the filing of the

associated contract for sale and related

documents together with any

partitioning and/or disaggregation

application that is filed within the first

three years following issuance of a new

PCS license through competitive

bidding. This document also dismisses

as moot the Rural Telecommunications

Group’s Motion for Stay to stay the

effective date of the new rules adopted

in the same Commission decision. This

action by the Commission eliminates

market entry barriers, thereby increasing

competition in the PCS marketplace

while expeditiously speeding service to

the public.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed

with the Office of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commisison, TW

B204, 445 12th Street, SW Washington,

DC 20554. Comments also should be

provided to Steve Weingarten, Chief,

Commercial Wireless Division, Room

4C–224, Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau, Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Conley, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau at (202)

418–0786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final

rule published at 62 FR 653 (January 6,

1997) previously adopted by the

Commission, and this document is in

keeping with Congress’ goal of

increasing competition in that it allows

more competitors to enter the

marketplace and deploy services to the

public quickly and efficiently, as well

as, provide opportunities for rural telcos

and other small businesses to provide

broadband PCS to the public without

increasing the administrative burden to

the Commission. This document was

released on April 13, 2000, and is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street,

SW Washington, D.C. The complete text

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW Washington,

DC 20036/(202) 857–3800. The

Memorandum Opinion and Order is

also available via the Internet at

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/

Orders/2000.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–10353 Filed 5–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–602, MM Docket No. 95–83, RM–

8558]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Littlefield, Wolfforth and Tahoka, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document grants the

Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed

by 21st Century Radio Ventures, Inc. by

substituting Channel 278A for Channel

237A at Tahoka. See 62 FR 14092

(March 25, 1997). In the Report and

Order, the Commission took no action

in Littlefield, Wolfforth or on the issue

of the deletion or substitution of

Channel 237A at Tahoka. Channel 278A

can be allotted to Tahoka in compliance

with the Commission’s minimum

distance separation requirements. The

coordinates for Channel 278A at Tahoka

are North Latitude 33–11–34 and West

Longitude 101–44–44. With this action

this proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arthur D. Scrutchins, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM

Docket No. 95–83, adopted March 8,

2000 and released March 20, 2000. The

full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Information Center

(Room CY–A257) at its headquarters,

445 12th Street, SW. Washington, D.C.

The complete text of this decision may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractors,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 303, 48 Stat., as

amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, as amended.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Texas is amended by

removing Channel 237A and adding

Channel 278A to Tahoka.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–10755 Filed 5–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712 –01–P