Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37749

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities. Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. There are no communities

of Indian tribal governments located in

the vicinity of the facility. Accordingly,

the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

J. Does This Rule Comply With the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act?

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standard. This

proposed rulemaking does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is

not considering the use of any voluntary

consensus standards. EPA welcomes

comments on this aspect of the

proposed rulemaking and, specifically,

invites the public to identify

potentially-applicable voluntary

consensus standards and to explain why

such standards should be used in this

regulation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

materials, Recycling, Waste treatment

and disposal.

Dated: June 8, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 261 of Chapter I of Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for part 261

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

6922, 6924(y), and 6938.

2. Section 261.4 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(16) to read as

follows:

§ 261.4 Exclusions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(16) Sludges resulting from the

treatment of wastewaters (not including

spent plating solutions) generated by the

copper metallization process at the

International Business Machines

Corporation (IBM) semiconductor

manufacturing facility in Essex

Junction, VT, are exempt from the F006

listing, provided that:

(i) IBM provides the Agency with

semi-annual reports (by January 15 and

July 15 of each year) detailing

constituent analyses measuring the

concentrations of volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals using methods

presented in part 264, Appendix IX of

this chapter of both the plating solution

utilized by, and the rinsewaters

generated by, the copper metallization

process;

(ii) IBM provides the agency with

semi-annual reports (by January 15 and

July 15 of each year), through the year

2004, or when IBM has achieved its

facility wide goal of a 50% reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions from a 1995

base year (when normalized to

production), whichever is first, that

contain the following:

(A) Estimated greenhouse gas

emissions, and estimated greenhouse

gas emission reductions. Greenhouse

gas emissions will be reported in terms

of total mass emitted and mass emitted

normalized to production; and

(B) The number of chemical vapor

deposition chambers used in the

semiconductor manufacturing

production line that have been

converted to either low flow C2F6 or NF3

during the reporting period and the

number of such chambers remaining to

be converted to achieve the facility goal

for global warming gas emission

reductions.

(iii) No significant changes are made

to the copper metallization process such

that any of the constituents listed in 40

CFR part 261, appendix VII as the basis

for the F006 listing are introduced into

the process.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–15154 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99–200; FCC 00–104]

Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Further notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document seeks further

comments on the following matters:

Thousands-block number pooling;

charging for numbering resources;

utilization thresholds for carriers, and

consideration of a transition period for

wireless service providers

implementation of thousand-block

number pooling. The foregoing issues

were addressed in a previous proposed

rule; however, the comments and

information received were insufficient

for the agency to proceed on these

matters. Therefore, the agency has

formulated further questions and is now

seeking additional comment.

DATES: Comments are due June 30, 2000,

and reply comments are due July 7,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Secretary, 445 12th Street,

SW, Room TW–B204F, Washington, DC

20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Aaron Goldberger, (202) 418–2320 or email at agoldberg@fcc.gov or Cheryl

Callahan at (202) 418–2320 or

ccallaha@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted

on March 17, 2000, and released on

March 31, 2000. The full text of this

Report and Order and Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center. The complete text may also be

obtained through the world wide web,

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

CommonCarrier/Orders, or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of the Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

1. In this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek further

comment on what specific utilization

threshold carriers not participating in

thousands-block number pooling

carriers should meet in order to request

growth numbering resources.

Commenters that offered a specific

utilization threshold suggested that

utilization thresholds should be set as

low as 60% and as high as 90%.

However, very little information was

37750 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

provided as to the basis for these

specific threshold levels. We seek

comment on specific utilization

threshold(s). Comments should include

rationale for the specific threshold(s)

recommended, including the initial

level, annual increases, and the

maximum level. We tentatively

conclude that a nationwide utilization

threshold for growth numbering

resources should be initially set at 50%.

This threshold would increase by 10%

annually until it reaches 80%.

Additionally, we propose to require

carriers to meet a specific rate centerbased utilization threshold for the rate

center in which it is seeking additional

numbering resources. If parties propose

a utilization threshold range, parties

should explain in detail what criteria

should be used to determine the specific

rate-center based utilization threshold

within that range. We seek further

comment on whether state commissions

should be allowed to set the rate-center

based utilization threshold within this

range based on criteria that we establish.

We also seek further comment on

utilization thresholds at the rate center

level that should operate in unison with

the thresholds at the NPA level.

2. Implementation of pooling for nonLNP capable carriers. We seek comment

on whether covered CMRS carriers

should be required to participate in

pooling immediately upon expiration of

the LNP forbearance period on

November 24, 2002. In the alternative,

we seek comment on whether we

should allow some sort of transition

period between the time that covered

CMRS carriers must implement LNP,

and the time that they must participate

in pooling, and if so, what the minimum

reasonable allowance for such a

transition period would be. We note that

by determining in this order that

covered CMRS carriers will be required

to participate in pooling once they have

acquired LNP capability, we are

providing a fairly long lead-time—more

than two years—in which all of the

necessary preparations may be

accomplished. We further note that after

they have acquired LNP capability,

covered CMRS providers will be subject

to the same terms and conditions

regarding participation in thousandsblock number pooling as are other LNPcapable carriers. For example, CMRS

providers within and outside the top

100 MSAs will not be subject to pooling

unless they have received a request for

LNP from another carrier, and pooling

will be limited to the same service area

as their LNP deployment.

3. Pricing for Numbers. In the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (64 FR

32471, June 17, 1999) we indicated that

an alternative approach for improving

the allocation and utilization of

numbering resources would be to

require carriers to pay for them. We

noted that this approach could be in

isolation or in combination with the

administrative and numbering

optimization approaches identified in

the NPRM. One of the primary economic

reasons given for opposing a marketbased allocation system was that

numbering resources are allocated in

10,000 blocks by rate center. Pricing

under this paradigm, it was argued,

would create a barrier to entry to new

markets. In any case, we continue to

believe that a market-based approach is

the most pro-competitive, least intrusive

way of ensuring that numbering

resources are efficiently allocated. We

believe that thousands-block pooling

will substantially reduce the quantity of

numbering resources new entrants will

need to accumulate to enter a market.

Therefore, we seek further comment on

how a market-based allocation system

for numbering resources could be

implemented. Specifically, we seek

comment on how a market-based

allocation system would affect the

efficiency of allocation of numbers

among carriers. Given that our

motivation in seeking comment on such

an approach is to increase the efficiency

with which numbering resources are

allocated and not to raise additional

funds, we also seek comment on

whether funds collected in this way

could be used to offset other payments

carriers make such as contributions to

the universal service and TRS programs.

Commenters addressing this issue

should specifically address how to

account for the fact that some carriers,

such as interexchange carriers, do not

generally use numbering resources but

currently contribute to these other

programs. Commenters should also

ensure that their proposals provide

market-based incentives for carriers to

economize their use of numbering

resources.

4. Recovery of Shared Industry and

Direct Carrier-Specific Costs. Requiring

incumbent LECs to bear their own costs

related to thousands-block number

pooling will not disadvantage any

telecommunications carrier. All other

carriers are also required to bear their

own shared industry and carrier-specific

costs. In the NPRM, the Commission

tentatively concluded that incumbent

LECs subject to rate-of-return or price

cap regulation may not recover their

interstate carrier-specific costs directly

related to thousands-block number

pooling through a federal charge

assessed on end-users, but may recover

the costs through other cost recovery

mechanisms. Several parties agree with

the tentative conclusion that thousandsblock number pooling costs should not

be recovered through a federal charge

assessed on end users, but should be

recovered through access charges. Some

commenters recommend that price cap

LECs should be allowed to treat the

thousands-block pooling number costs

as exogenous cost adjustments or,

alternatively, place the costs in a new or

existing price cap basket. Other parties,

however, urge us to abandon our

tentative conclusion because recovery

through access charges would violate

the competitive neutrality standard of

section 251(e)(2).

5. In the Notice, we requested detailed

estimates of the costs of thousandsblock number pooling and asked that

commenters separate the estimates by

category of costs. We also sought

comment on the appropriate

methodology for developing these and

other cost estimates. The amount and

detail of the data provided in response

to our request is insufficient for us to

determine the amount and/or magnitude

of the costs associated with thousandsblock number pooling. Without

sufficient cost data, it is difficult for us

to determine the appropriate cost

recovery mechanism for these costs. We,

therefore, find it necessary to request

additional cost information prior to

making a final decision on the

appropriate method of cost recovery. We

seek further comment and cost studies

that quantify shared industry and direct

carrier-specific costs of thousands-block

number pooling. We also seek comment

and cost studies that take into account

the cost savings associated with

thousands-block pooling in comparison

to the current numbering practices that

result in more frequent area code

changes.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Analysis

6. The actions contained in this

FNPRM have been analyzed with

respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 and found that there are no new

reporting requirements or burden on the

public.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

7. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 603 (RFA), the

Commission has prepared this present

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) of the possible significant

economic impact on small entities of the

policies and rules proposed in this

FNPRM. Written public comments are

requested on this IRFA. Comments must

be identified as responses to the IRFA

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37751

1See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

2 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201 and 251(e).

3 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

4 Id. section 601(6).

5 Id. section 601(3) (incorporating by reference the

definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in Small

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

601(3), the statutory definition of a small business

applies ‘‘unless an agency, after consultation with

the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration and after opportunity for public

comment, establishes one or more definitions of

such term which are appropriate to the activities of

the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the

Federal Register.’’

6Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.

7See 13 CFR 121.201.

8See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4813. Since the

time of the Local Competition decision, 11 FCC Rcd

15499, 16144–45 (1996), 61 FR 45476 (Aug. 29,

1996), the Commission has consistently addressed

in its regulatory flexibility analyses the impact of

its rules on such ILECs.

9FCC, Carrier Locator: Interstate Service

Providers at 1–2. This report lists 3,604 companies

that provided interstate telecommunications service

as of December 31, 1997 and was compiled using

information from Telecommunications Relay

Service (TRS) Fund Worksheets filed by carriers

(Jan. 1999).

10U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, 1992 Census of Transportation,

Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and

Firm Size, at Firm Size 1–123 (1995) (1992 Census).

11A description of the effected entities are list in

the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis,

Appendix B.

12See generally 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).

and must be filed by the deadlines for

comments on the FNPRM provided

above in section VIII. The Commission

will send a copy of the FNPRM,

including this IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.1 In addition,

the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries

thereof) will be published in the Federal

Register.

8. Need for and Objectives of the

Proposed Rules. The Commission is

issuing this Further Notice to seek

public comment on (a) What specific

utilization threshold carriers not

participating in thousands-block

number pooling should meet in order to

request growth numbering resources; (b)

whether state commissions should be

allowed to set rate-center based

utilization thresholds based on criteria

that we establish; (c) whether covered

CMRS carriers should be required to

participate in thousands-block number

pooling immediately upon expiration of

the LNP forbearance period on

November 24, 2002, or whether a

transition period should be allowed;

and (d) how a market-based allocation

system for numbering resources could

be implemented. We also seek to obtain

the following: (a) Cost studies that

quantify the incremental costs of

thousands-block number pooling; (b)

cost studies that quantify shared

industry and direct carrier-specific costs

of thousands-block number pooling; and

(c) cost studies that take into account

the cost savings associated with

thousands-block number pooling in

comparison to the current numbering

practices that result in more frequent

area code changes.

9. The Commission seeks to ensure

that the limited numbering resources of

the NANP are used efficiently; to protect

customers from the expense and

inconvenience that result from the

implementation of new area codes; to

forestall the enormous expense that will

be incurred in expanding the NANP,

and to ensure that all carriers have the

numbering resources they need to

compete in the rapidly growing

telecommunications marketplace.

10. Legal Basis. The proposed action

is authorized under sections 1, 4(i) and

(j), 201, 208, and 251 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended.2

11. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities That May Be

Affected by this Report and Order. The

RFA requires that an initial 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.’’ 3

The RFA generally defines ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental

jurisdiction.’’ 4 In addition, the term

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act.5 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).6

12. In this IRFA, we have considered

the potential impact of this FNPRM on

all users of telephone numbering

resources. The small entities possibly

affected by these rules include wireline,

wireless, and other entities, as described

in Appendix B. The SBA has defined a

small business for Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) categories 4,812

(Radiotelephone Communications) and

4,813 (Telephone Communications,

Except Radiotelephone) to be small

entities having no more than 1,500

employees.7 Although some affected

incumbent local exchange carriers

(ILECs) may have 1,500 or fewer

employees, we do not believe that such

entities should be considered small

entities within the meaning of the RFA

because they are either dominant in

their field of operations or are not

independently owned and operated, and

therefore by definition are not ‘‘small

entities’’ or ‘‘small business concerns’’

under the RFA. Accordingly, our use of

the terms ‘‘small entities’’ and ‘‘small

businesses’’ does not encompass small

ILECs. Out of an abundance of caution,

however, for regulatory flexibility

analysis purposes, we will separately

consider small ILECs within this

analysis and use the term ‘‘small ILECs’’

to refer to any ILECs that arguably might

be defined by the SBA as ‘‘small

business concerns.’’ 8

13. The most reliable source of

information regarding the total numbers

of certain common carrier and related

providers nationwide, as well as the

numbers of commercial wireless

entities, appears to be data the

Commission publishes annually in its

Carrier Locator: Interstate Service

Providers Report (Locator).9 These

carriers include, inter alia, local

exchange carriers, competitive local

exchange carriers, interexchange

carriers, competitive access providers,

satellite service providers, wireless

telephony providers, operator service

providers, pay telephone operators,

providers of telephone toll service,

providers of telephone exchange

service, and resellers.

14. Total Number of Companies

Affected. The U.S. Bureau of the Census

(Census Bureau) reports that, at the end

of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged

in providing telephone services, as

defined therein, for at least one year.10

This number contains a variety of

different categories of carriers, including

local exchange carriers, interexchange

carriers, competitive access providers,

cellular carriers, mobile service carriers,

operator service providers, pay

telephone operators, personal

communications services providers,

covered specialized mobile radio

providers, and resellers.11 It seems

certain that some of those 3,497

telephone service firms may not qualify

as small entities or small ILECs because

they are not ‘‘independently owned and

operated.’’ 12 For example, a PCS

provider that is affiliated with an

interexchange carrier having more than

1,500 employees would not meet the

definition of a small business. It is

reasonable to conclude that fewer than

3,497 telephone service firms are small

entity telephone service firms or small

ILECs that may be affected by the

proposed rules, if adopted.

15. Description of Projected

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

37752 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

13See NPRM, 64 FR 32471 (June 17, 1999) for an

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act analysis.

14Telephone Number Portability Third Report

and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 11731, 63 FR 35150 (June

29, 1998).

Compliance Requirements.13 This

FNPRM requests comment and cost

studies (1) that quantify the incremental

costs of thousands-block number

pooling; (2) that quantify shared

industry and direct carrier-specific costs

of thousands-block number pooling; and

(3) that take into account the costs

savings associated with thousands-block

number pooling in comparison to the

current number practices that result in

more frequent area code changes.

16. Recordkeeping. None.

17. Other Compliance Requirements.

None.

18. Steps taken to Minimize

Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities and Significant Alternatives

Considered. We have stated that section

251(e) does not exclude any class of

carriers and that all telecommunications

carriers must bear numbering

administration costs on a competitively

neutral basis.14 Therefore, we find that

section 251(e)(2) requires us to ensure

that the costs of numbering

administration, including thousandsblock number pooling, do not affect the

ability of carriers to compete. As such,

the costs of thousands-block number

pooling should not give one provider an

appreciable, incremental cost advantage

over another when competing for a

specific subscriber; and should not have

a disparate effect on competing

providers’ abilities to earn a normal

return.

19. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules. None.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–15200 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–1237, MM Docket No. 00–104, RM–

9812]

Digital Television Broadcast Service;

Oklahoma City, OK

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by

Paramount Stations Group of Oklahoma

LLC, licensee of station KAUT–TV,

NTSC Channel 43, Oklahoma City,

Oklahoma, requesting the substitution

of DTV Channel 40 for its assigned DTV

42. DTV Channel 40 can be allotted to

Oklahoma City in compliance with the

principle community coverage

requirements of Section 73.625(a) at

coordinates 35–35–22 N. and 97–29–03

W. DTV Channel 40 can be allotted to

Oklahoma City with a power of 57.7 kW

and a height above average terrain

(HAAT) of 475 meters.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before July 31, 2000, and reply

comments on or before August 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room

TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: James R. Bayes, E. Joseph

Knoll III, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, 1776

K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006

(Counsel for Paramount Stations Group

of Oklahoma City LLC).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–104, adopted June 7, 2000, and

released June 8, 2000. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

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

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–15265 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–1238, MM Docket No. 00–103, RM–

9878]

Digital Television Broadcast Service;

Killeen, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by White

Knight Broadcasting of Killeen License

Corporation, licensee of Station

KAKW(TV), NTSC Channel 62, Killeen,

Texas, requesting the substitution of

DTV Channel 13 for its assigned DTV

Channel 23. DTV Channel 13 can be

allotted to Killeen, Texas, in compliance

with the principle community coverage

requirements of Section 73.625(a) at

reference coordinates (30–43–33 N and

97–59–24 W). As requested, we propose

to allot DTV Channel 13 to Killeen with

a power of 39.4 and a height above

average terrain (HAAT) of 553 meters.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before July 31, 2000, and reply

comments on or before August 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room

TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Kathryn R. Schmeltzer,

David S. Konczal, Fisher, Wayland,

Cooper, Leader & Zaragoza, L.L.P., 2001

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20006 (Counsel for White Knight

Broadcasting of Killeen License

Corporation).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–103, adopted June 7, 2000, and

released June 8, 2000. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased