Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41613

ADDRESSES: If sent by mail, an original

and ten copies of the reply comments

should be addressed to: Copyright

Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), P.O.

Box 70977, Southwest Station,

Washington, DC 20024. If hand

delivered, the reply comments, they

should be brought to: Office of the

General Counsel, James Madison

Building, Room LM–403, First and

Independence Ave., SE., Washington,

DC 20559–6000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or

Tanya M. Sandros, Attorney Advisor,

Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400,

Southwest Station, Washington, D.C.

20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380.

Telefax: (202) 707–8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 23, 2000, the Copyright

Office published a notice of inquiry

seeking comments on whether to grant

a petition for rulemaking filed with the

Copyright Office on April 17, 2000, by

the Digital Media Association (DiMA).

65 FR 33266 (May 23, 2000). The

petition requests that the Office adopt a

rule stating that a webcasting service

does not become an interactive service

because a consumer exerts some degree

of influence over the streamed

programming.

Comments in response to the notice of

inquiry were filed on June 22, 2000.

Two parties filed comments in this

proceeding, the Recording Industry

Association of America, Inc. and DiMA.

On June 30, 2000, DiMA filed a request

for an extension of the filing date for

reply comments from the initially

announced date of July 7, 2000, to July

14, 2000. DiMA asserts that it is in need

of more time to develop a meaningful

response because the intervening fourday Fourth of July holiday creates

logistical difficulties for it and its

members. DiMA also suggests that an

extension of the filing deadline by a

week will create no prejudice to any

party interested in filing a reply in this

proceeding.

The Office agrees and, therefore,

grants the request for a one-week

extension of the reply comment filing

period. Reply comments are now due on

Friday, July 14, 2000.

Dated: June 30, 2000.

David O. Carson,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–17109 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–31–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 434

[FRL–6730–7]

Extension of Comment Period for Coal

Mining Point Source Category;

Amendments to Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and New Source

Performance Standards; Proposed

Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment

period for proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the

comment period for the proposed

amendments to effluent limitations

guidelines and new source performance

standards for the coal mining point

source category. The proposed rule was

published in the Federal Register on

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19439). The

comment period for the proposed rule is

extended by 60 days, ending on

September 8, 2000. This extension is

being granted while taking into

consideration the court-ordered

promulgation deadline for the final rule.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

will be accepted through September 8,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

John Tinger (4303); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; Ariel Rios Building;

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.;

Washington, DC 20460. Comments

delivered by hand should be brought to

Room 615, West Tower; 401 M Street,

S.W.; Washington, DC. Please submit

any references cited in your comments.

Submit an original and three copies of

your written comments and enclosures.

No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

For information on how to submit

electronic comments, see the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional technical information,

contact John Tinger at (202) 260–4992 or

at Tinger.John@epa.gov. For additional

economic information, contact Kristen

Strellac at (202) 260–6036 or at

Strellac.Kristen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

11, 2000, EPA published proposed

amendments to effluent limitations

guidelines and new source performance

standards for the coal mining industry

in the Federal Register for public

review and comment (65 FR 19439). The

comment period was scheduled to end

July 10, 2000.

EPA has received requests to extend

the comment period to allow more time

for public comment. While EPA believes

the initial comment period of 90 days

was adequate, to accommodate these

requests EPA is extending the comment

period 60 days, through September 8,

2000.

In addition to accepting hard-copy

written comments, EPA will also accept

comments submitted electronically.

Electronic comments must be submitted

as a Word Perfect 5/6/7/8 or ASCII file

and must be submitted to

Tinger.John@epa.gov.

Under a consent decree entered by the

U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia, EPA is scheduled to

promulgate the final rule by December

2001. See 65 FR 19442. While this

deadline is feasible even with this

extension of the comment period, EPA

would not support any further extension

of the comment period.

Dated: June 29, 2000.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 00–17069 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[IB Docket No. 00–106, FCC 00–210]

Review of Commission’s

Consideration of Applications Under

the Cable Landing License Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document solicits

comments on a proposed mechanism for

streamlining the licensing of

international submarine cable systems.

Under the proposal, applicants would

have three options to qualify for

streamlined review. The Commission

initiated this proceeding as a means of

tailoring its licensing process to

encourage rapid, facilities-based entry

by multiple firms that can bring new

capacity to keep up with the increased

demand.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

August 21, 2000, and reply comments

are due on or before September 21,

2000. Written comments by the public

on the proposed information collections

are due on or before August 21, 2000.

Written comments must be submitted by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) on the proposed information

collections before September 5, 2000.

41614 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Secretary, 445 12th Street,

SW., Room TW–B204F, Washington, DC

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the proposed information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov, and to Edward C.

Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room

10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to

edward.springer@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Reitzel, Policy and Facilities

Branch, Telecommunications Division,

International Bureau, (202) 418–1499.

For additional information concerning

the proposed information collections

contained in this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking contact Judy Boley at (202)

418–0214, or email at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, FCC 00–210,

adopted on June 8, 2000, and released

on June 22, 2000. The full text of this

document is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center

(Room CY–A257) of the Federal

Communications Commission, 445 12th

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. The

document is also available for download

over the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/

Bureaus/International/Notices/2000/

fcc00210.txt. The complete text of this

document also 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.

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

contains proposed information

collections subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has

been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review under the PRA. OMB, the

general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed information collections

contained in this proceeding.

Summary of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. On June 8, 2000, the Commission

adopted a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) to initiate a

proceeding to establish streamlined

rules for processing applications for

submarine cable landing licenses. This

proceeding is one of the Commission’s

continuing efforts to streamline the

submarine cable landing licensing

process. The streamlining proposal is

designed to provide guidance for

industry in submitting applications and

for the Commission in reviewing such

applications. The streamlining approach

is designed to provide more certainty

and flexibility for participants in the

application process, to promote

increased investment and infrastructure

development by multiple providers, and

to decrease application processing time.

The approach in the NPRM reflects

broad input from participants in the

submarine cable industry. In November

1999, the International Bureau held a

Public Forum (64 FR 56347, Oct. 19,

1999) and has held numerous informal

meetings with individual industry

participants to solicit views about ways

the Commission might improve its

regulation of the submarine cable

landing licensing process to further

promote consumer benefits from

increased cable capacity and facilitiesbased competition. The Commission

seeks comments on the proposals and

tentative conclusions contained in this

NPRM.

2. The Commission proposes a

mechanism under which an applicant

for a submarine cable landing license

will have three options to qualify

presumptively for grant on a

streamlined basis. The NPRM proposes

the following three streamlining

options: a demonstration that the route

on which the proposed cable would

operate is or will become competitive; a

demonstration of sufficient

independence of control of the proposed

cable from control of existing capacity

on the route; or the existence of certain

pro-competitive arrangements.

3. Under the proposal, an applicant

could choose any one of the three

options to qualify presumptively for

grant on a streamlined basis. The

Commission states that if an application

does not qualify for streamlining, it will

be reviewed on a non-streamlined basis

without prejudice.

4. The Commission proposes that,

when considering an application to land

and operate a submarine cable that will

connect to a non-WTO member, it

would consider whether the applicant

is, or is affiliated with, a carrier that has

market power in a market where the

cable lands. If so, the Commission

proposes to consider whether that

destination market offers effective

competitive opportunities (ECO) for

U.S. companies to land or operate a

submarine cable in that country.

Therefore, the Commission proposes

that such a cable would not qualify

presumptively for grant on a

streamlined basis, and, in addition to

the de jure and de facto ECO criteria,

the Commission would continue to

consider other factors consistent with

the Commission’s discretion under the

Cable Landing License Act that may

weigh in favor of or against grant of a

license. The Commission seeks

comment on this proposal.

5. The Commission seeks comment on

control of three key submarine facilities:

the wet link of a submarine cable

system; cable landing stations serving a

submarine cable system; and exclusive

backhaul facilities associated with the

landing stations of a submarine cable

system. The Commission tentatively

concludes that an examination of a

firm’s influence over these three key

facilities is necessary to determine

whether a cable project raises

competitive concerns. The Commission

seeks comment on this tentative

conclusion.

6. In the NPRM, the Commission

proposes that, to meet any of the three

streamlining options, an applicant must

provide sufficient documentation. The

Commission states that such

documentation should include, for

example, cable landing license

applications, Commission Orders, the

International Bureau’s Circuit Status

Report, the various Construction &

Maintenance Agreements (C&MAs) or

capacity purchase agreements for the

cables, and industry press releases. The

Commission seeks comment on other

types of documentation that would be

useful for applicants seeking to qualify

for the streamlining options. The

Commission also proposes that the

streamlining options should apply

equally for initial applications to land

and operate submarine cables and to

applications to assign or transfer control

of existing submarine cable landing

licenses. The Commission seeks

comment on this proposal.

7. The first proposed streamlining

option is a demonstration that the route

in question is, or will become,

competitive because there are multiple,

independently controlled cables serving

the route. The Commission proposes

that, when an applicant seeks to make

a competitive route demonstration, the

Commission would consider a ‘‘route’’

to be the connection between the U.S.

and a landing point in a foreign country.

The Commission also notes that an

applicant could choose to show that

there are other economically

comparable means to access the

destination route through a landline or

submarine connection using another

cable or facility stemming from a pointto-point route other than the destination

route, i.e., hubbing. The Commission

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41615

seeks comment on these methods of

defining a route. The Commission also

notes that in the context of reviewing

certain mergers, the Commission has

chosen to adopt a regional approach to

analyzing the international transport

market. The Commission seeks

comment on whether it should instead

consider adopting a regional route

approach in determining whether there

are sufficient competitive options

within the submarine cable market. The

Commission notes that commenters

advocating a regional route approach

should address how the Commission

might define ‘‘region.’’

8. To satisfy the option that the route

is or will become competitive, the

Commission proposes that an applicant

demonstrate that there are at least three

independently controlled cables,

including the applicant’s proposed

cable, serving the route on which the

applicant wishes to operate the

proposed cable. The Commission

proposes that an applicant rely only on

cables that have become operational

within 36 months of the filing of the

current application. The Commission

seeks comment on whether 36 months

is the appropriate cut-off period for

cables becoming operational. The

Commission also seeks comment on

whether three is the appropriate

minimum number of independent

cables and states that commenters

arguing that three is not the appropriate

minimum should suggest and support

an alternate minimum number.

9. For purposes of the competitive

route streamlining option, the NPRM

seeks comment on how to attribute

control of proposed and existing cables.

Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment

on the extent of ownership in the three

key submarine cable facilities (wet link,

cable landing stations, and exclusive

backhaul facilities) that would give a

firm control of proposed or existing

cables for purposes of this streamlining

option. The NPRM states that, for

example, one approach would be to

attribute control of an entire cable to

any entity that: owns 50 percent or more

of the equity in the wet link of the cable;

owns 50 percent or more of the equity

in a landing station on the cable; is the

exclusive backhaul provider at a landing

station of the cable; or exercises de facto

control over the wet link of the cable or

a landing station on the cable.

Alternatively, the NPRM seeks comment

on whether there may be other options

to consider in determining what level of

ownership of key submarine cable

facilities would give a firm control of a

cable system for purposes of this

streamlining option. With regard to the

landing station element, the NPRM

states that the Commission would not

propose to attribute control of any of the

cable system to an entity controlling

fewer than all of the landing stations in

a particular country.

10. Stating that it is concerned that

including these demonstrations for all

landing points for a proposed cable may

create a disincentive for cable landing

license applicants seeking to qualify for

the competitive route streamlining

option to include a loop on the cable

that serves a previously underserved

country, the Commission seeks

comment on whether the Commission

should adopt an exception under which

a landing point on the route of a

proposed cable would not need to be

included in the competitive route

analysis.

11. The NPRM also seeks comment on

whether the Commission should

entertain petitions for declaratory ruling

regarding the competitiveness of certain

routes in lieu of the case-by-case

showings as proposed in the NPRM. The

NPRM asks commenters to identify

specific showings that a petitioner

would need to make in order for the

Commission to declare a particular

route competitive in this manner. The

NPRM also asks commenters to address

whether the benefits of the proposed 36-

month cut-off are so significant that the

Commission should not entertain

petitions for declaratory ruling

regarding the competitiveness of

particular routes. The Commission also

seeks comment on whether a

declaratory ruling should remain

effective, if, subsequent to the

declaratory ruling, two or more firms

that control facilities on the route have

merged.

12. The second proposed streamlining

option is a demonstration that the

proposed cable system will be

controlled predominantly by new

entrants. For purposes of this

streamlining option, the Commission

proposes to identify a ‘‘key applicant

group’’ of a proposed cable and seeks

comment on the extent of ownership in

the three key submarine cable facilities

(wetlink, cable landing stations, and

exclusive backhaul facilities) that would

give a firm control of a cable system for

purposes of including the firm in the

key applicant group of a proposed cable.

The Commission states that, for

example, one approach would be to

include in the key applicant group any

entity that: owns 50 percent or more of

the equity in the wet link of the

proposed cable; owns 50 percent or

more of the equity in a landing station

on the proposed cable; is the exclusive

backhaul provider at a landing station of

the proposed cable; or exercises de facto

control over the wet link of the

proposed cable or a landing station on

the proposed cable. Alternatively, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

there may be other options to consider

in determining what level of ownership

of key submarine cable facilities would

give a firm control of a cable system for

purposes of including the firm in the

key applicant group of the proposed

cable.

13. The proposed streamlining option

would consist of a demonstration that

entities in the key applicant group of a

proposed cable control less than 50

percent of the existing wet link capacity

on the route to be served by the

proposed cable. The Commission states

that an applicant that is providing

service on the route for the first time

could satisfy this proposed streamlining

option simply by certifying that the key

applicant group of the proposed cable

does not control any existing wet link

capacity on the route to be served by the

proposed cable. In a situation in which

an applicant is proposing to serve

previously unserved routes, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

it should streamline the processing of

such an application.

14. For a proposed cable whose key

applicant group controls existing

capacity on the route to be served by the

proposed cable, the NPRM states that an

applicant could make a showing that it

controls less than 50 percent of the

existing wet link capacity on the route.

The Commission proposes to attribute

the entire capacity of an existing cable

system to any entity that owns 50

percent or more of the equity in the wet

link of the existing cable or exercises de

facto control over the wet link of the

existing cable. In addition, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

and to what extent it should attribute to

a firm capacity on an existing cable

based on the firm’s percentage of control

of landing stations in any country in

which that existing cable lands. The

Commission invites alternative

proposals for attributing capacity and

seeks comment on the appropriate

treatment of joint ventures and affiliates

in this context.

15. The NPRM proposes that

applicants choosing this streamlining

option provide a list of all firms in the

key applicant group and a calculation of

this group’s share of existing capacity

on the route. The Commission states

that it believes that this information

should be readily available through

cable landing license applications,

Commission Orders, the International

Bureau’s annual Circuit Status Report,

the various C&MAs and capacity

purchase agreements for the cables, and

41616 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

industry press releases. Comments are

sought on whether this is the case.

16. Global Crossing submitted a

proposal it suggests the Commission use

as a basis for addressing competitive

issues in the submarine cable market in

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Specifically, Global Crossing proposes a

structural solution under which, for an

applicant to receive a submarine cable

landing license, the applicant would

need to demonstrate that the landing

parties on the U.S. end of the cable do

not have a combined share of more than

35 percent of the active half circuits,

including half circuits of full circuits,

on the U.S. side of the route served by

the cable. The NPRM seeks comment on

this proposal.

17. The third proposed streamlining

option is a demonstration of sufficient

pro-competitive arrangements. The

Commission states that, as a general

matter, the pro-competitive provisions

should constrain the ability of major

carriers on a cable to set

supracompetitive prices by controlling

backhaul and the timing of the final

capacity upgrade of the cable system,

which ultimately would result in higher

prices for consumers. The Commission

seeks comment on its general

conclusions, and whether the

Commission’s licensing processing

processes should reflect these goals.

18. As part of the pro-competitive

policy, the Commission proposes that

an applicant, in ownership or other

documents, include specific provisions

regarding landing stations and

competitive backhaul. The Commission

seeks comment on two alternatives for

such provisions. First, the Commission

states that, in order to qualify for

streamlining, applicants might include

in ownership or other documents

general provisions allowing for

sufficient collocation at a landing

station by other owners or their

designees and stating that there will be

no restrictions on who can provide

backhaul. Alternatively, the

Commission states that, in order to

qualify for streamlining, applicants

might be required to make more specific

demonstrations. As an example, the

Commission notes that it might provide

that an applicant include provisions

explicitly stating that: sufficient space at

all landing stations in the United States,

and at each foreign landing station on

the route where applicants plan to land

the proposed cable, will be made

available to any other owner, or the

designee of any other owner, for the

purpose of collocating equipment to

provide backhaul; all owners or

designees of owners may use such space

for the provision by them of backhaul

services to others; and there will be no

restrictions on the ability of any owner

to subcontract the provision of

backhaul. The Commission notes that,

to make specific demonstrations

regarding backhaul, an applicant could

include provisions in ownership or

other documents explicitly stating that

at least two separate parties will provide

backhaul, rather than a single entity, at

all landing stations in the United States,

and at each foreign landing station on

the route where applicants plan to land

the proposed cable.

19. The Commission seeks comment

on these two alternatives and any other

alternative that commenters deem to be

more appropriate. The Commission also

seeks comment on whether collocation

and backhaul rights provided by

applicants should apply only to owners

of equity or to IRU holders as well. In

addition, the Commission notes that

there has been some concern expressed

about high rates charged for connection

to cables and backhaul from cable

landing stations, and seeks comment on

ways in which the Commission might

ensure the ability of carriers to obtain

connection to a cable and backhaul to

points of presence at competitive rates.

20. The Commission also proposes

that, in order to qualify under this

streamlining option, an applicant

include certain provisions in ownership

or other documents about wet link

capacity upgrades and use of capacity.

The Commission seeks comment on

whether, in order to qualify for this

streamlining option, a provision should

be included in ownership or other

documents that would allow the

capacity of a cable to be upgraded either

by a 51 percent vote of the owners or by

any group of owners voting to fully fund

the cost of the upgrade. The

Commission notes that, in the latter

case, ownership or other documents

would indicate that all owners, not just

owners voting to fully fund the upgrade,

will have the right to buy into the

upgrade consistent with their

contractual rights. The Commission also

seeks comment on whether a firm’s

interest in a cable should be measured

in terms of circuits, dollar value of

investment or some other measure. In

addition, the Commission seeks

comment on whether, in order to qualify

for this streamlining option, an

applicant should include provisions in

ownership or other documents

explicitly stating that, after the initial

capacity has been funded, there will be

no restrictions on resale or transfer of

capacity and no restrictions on parties

reselling their ownership shares and/or

reselling or leasing their rights on the

cable. The Commission seeks comment

on whether an applicant should

explicitly state that there will be no

unreasonable charges assessed on

owners wishing to resell or transfer

capacity or ownership shares, or

wishing to resell or lease their rights on

the cable.

21. The Commission also seeks

comment on whether, as an additional

pro-competitive arrangement, an

applicant should include a provision in

ownership or other documents

explicitly allowing smaller firms to

combine their capacity requirements for

the purpose of obtaining volume

discounts.

22. The Commission also proposes

methods to streamline the process and

seeks comment on the proposals. The

Commission notes because of the

unique role of the Executive Branch

with respect to submarine cable landing

licenses, and because the Commission

we intends to coordinate closely with

the Executive Branch, the Commission

does not propose a wholesale adoption

of the Section 214 streamlining process

for submarine cable landing license

applications. With respect to timing for

review of submarine cable landing

license applications, the Commission

proposes that, if an application qualifies

presumptively for grant on a

streamlined basis under one of the three

streamlining options, the Commission

will grant the application 60 days from

the date the International Bureau issues

a public notice accepting the

application for filing, or indicate in a

public notice why grant of the

application within 60 days cannot be

provided. The Commission seeks

comment on this proposal and states

that it expects that the period between

the filing of an application and the

release of a public notice ordinarily

would not be lengthy because the

International Bureau would put an

application out on public notice

promptly after determining that the

application is complete.

23. The NPRM also discusses the

possibility of a conditional grant of a

cable landing license whereby the

Commission would condition its grant

of authority on ultimate approval by the

Secretary of State. The Commission also

proposes to issue streamlined licenses

by public notice, rather than by issuing

an Order and seeks comment on

whether issuing a public notice would

satisfy the requirement under the Cable

Landing License Act that grants be

issued by ‘‘written license.’’

24. The Commission states its

intention to continue its private

submarine cable policy in order to

further stimulate competition in the

market, but states that it does not

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41617

propose to abandon the distinction

between submarine cable systems which

operate on a common carrier and a noncommon carrier basis. The Commission

also seeks comment on whether, in a

situation in which an applicant is

proposing to serve previously unserved

routes, the Commission should impose

conditions, such as a nondiscrimination

requirement, on the license, regardless

of whether the Commission grants the

license on a streamlined basis. The

Commission also seeks comment on the

types of situations in which it might be

appropriate for the Commission to

require a cable to be operated on a

common carrier basis and asks

commenters to address whether the

Commission should consider indirect

means to a destination point in

determining the level of competition on

a route and whether a route is a thin

route. The Commission also seeks

comment on what effect, if any, the

imposition of common carrier

regulations or common carrier-like

obligations may have on a company’s

business decision whether to build a

cable.

25. In addition, the Commission seeks

comment on whether any of the routine

conditions currently imposed on cable

landing licenses should be eliminated or

modified. The Commission also notes

that Level 3 suggested that the

Commission develop special conditions

for the licenses of submarine cables

whose participants include carriers that

are ‘‘major suppliers,’’ regardless of

whether those carriers are U.S.-licensed

carriers, and states that Level 3 defines

a ‘‘major supplier’’ as that term is

defined in the Reference Paper to the

WTO Basic Telecom Agreement. Level 3

argued that to prevent such carriers

from acting anticompetitively in the

submarine cable market, the

Commission should impose conditions

relating to: cable station access,

requiring a major supplier to provide

competing carriers with, for example,

physical collocation at the cable station,

circuit provisioning and interconnection

intervals; backhaul, requiring a major

supplier to allow competing carriers to

negotiate a backhaul contract with the

major supplier on a timely and

reasonable basis with nondiscriminatory

pricing; and procedures, requiring a

major supplier to expedite orders for

service with reasonable times and

reasonable charges, to ensure freely

available information, and, for

consortium cables, to separate

submarine cable and related operations

from terrestrial operations. The

Commission seeks comment on Level

3’s suggestions and states that

commenters advocating that the

Commission adopt Level 3’s suggestions

should indicate whether we should

define ‘‘major supplier’’ as Level 3

defines the term, or whether we should

adopt an alternative definition, and

explain how the proposed definition

would work in practice.

26. To provide more certainty to

potential cable landing license

applicants, the Commission proposes a

method for determining who should be

included as an applicant for a cable

landing license. Specifically, the

Commission proposes that an entity

should be included as an applicant for

a cable landing license for a proposed

cable system, regardless of whether the

entity also is a Section 214 licensee, if

the entity is a landing station owner or:

the entity has a five percent or greater

ownership interest in the proposed

cable which includes voting rights,

except if the ownership is exclusively at

foreign points on the cable system, and

the entity will use the U.S. points of the

cable system in any capacity, unless the

capacity merely is ‘‘hard-patched’’

through and is not dropping traffic in

the U.S. or using the U.S. points of the

cable system to re-originate traffic.

Under the Commission’s proposal, if an

entity, at the time it files the application

and the license is granted does not plan

to use the U.S.-points of the cable

system, but later decides to do so, that

entity would need to file an application

to be added to the license. The

Commission seeks comment on whether

a five percent or greater ownership

interest would ensure that we include

entities with a significant ability to

affect the operation of a cable system,

but that we not burden smaller carriers

or investors and notes that, under a five

percent or greater ownership threshold,

fewer entities will be required to obtain

licenses than under the current practice.

The Commission seeks comment on

whether a different percentage would be

appropriate to accomplish these goals.

The Commission notes, that, under this

proposal, an entity that is a licensee for

an existing submarine cable but does

not own a landing station and has less

than a five percent ownership interest in

the cable, may file with the Commission

a request that its license be

relinquished.

27. The Commission also seeks

comment on whether it would facilitate

processing if it encourages or mandates

electronic filing for the applications. As

the Commission did with respect to

streamlined assignments and transfers

of control of international Section 214

authorizations, the Commission

proposes to delegate to the International

Bureau the authority to identify those

particular applications that do warrant

public comment and additional

Commission scrutiny under current

stated Commission policies. Comments

are solicited on this proposal as well as

others described in the NPRM.

28. The Commission declines to

propose modifying or waiving licensing

or regulatory fees. The Commission

does, however, seek comment generally

on whether, if the Commission

ultimately adopts the streamlining

measures proposed in the NPRM, it

would be in the pubic interest to

propose a modification of the regulatory

fees.

Procedural Matters

29. Ex Parte Presentations. This

NPRM is a permit but disclose notice

and comment rulemaking proceeding.

Ex Parte presentations are permitted,

except during the Sunshine Agenda

period, provided they are disclosed as

provided in the Commission’s rules.

30. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis. Pursuant to the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis was prepared and is

incorporated as Attachment A of this

summary. Written comments on the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis are requested.

31. Paperwork Reduction Act. The

NPRM contains proposed information

collections. The Commission, as part of

its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, invites the general

public and the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) to take this

opportunity to comment on the

proposed information collections

contained in the NPRM, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Written comments

by the public on the proposed

information collections are due the

same day as comments on the NPRM,

August 21, 2000. Written comments

must be submitted by OMB on the

proposed information collections

September 5, 2000. Comments should

address the following: (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 estimate; (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.

OMB Control Number: 3060–XXXX.

Title: Applications under the Cable

Landing License Act.

41618 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business and other forprofit entities.

Number of Respondents: 55.

Number of Responses: 55.

Estimated Time Per Response: Under

Section 1.767(a)–(e), we estimate

approximately 10 hours will be imposed

on 15 respondents. Under Section

1.767(f), we estimate 1 burden hour per

respondent.

Frequency of Response: On Occasion.

Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 95 hours (50%

of burden estimated to be contracted to

outside assistance).

Total Annual Costs: $208,875.

Needs and Uses: The information will

be used by the Commission to

determine the qualifications of

applicants to construct and operate

submarine cables, including applicants

that are affiliated with foreign carriers,

and to determine whether and under

what conditions the authorizations are

in the public interest, convenience, and

necessity. The proposed information

collections are necessary for the

Commission to maintain effective

oversight of U.S. carriers that are

affiliated with, or involved in certain comarketing or similar arrangements with,

foreign carriers that have sufficient

market power to affect competition

adversely in the U.S. market. In

addition, the Commission must

maintain records that accurately reflect

a party or parties that control a carrier’s

operations, particularly for purposes of

enforcing the Commission’s rules and

policies.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory

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

Commission has prepared this present

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) of the possible significant

economic impact on small entities by

the policies proposed in this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). 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

NPRM provided in Section IV, Subpart

C of the NPRM. The Commission will

send a copy of the NPRM, including this

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration.

In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or

summaries thereof) will be published in

the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

In recent years, there has been

explosive growth in the number and

capacity of submarine cables triggered

in large part by increased Internet and

data traffic. Because of this increased

demand for capacity, the rapid pace of

technological development, and the

emergence of non-traditional ownership

and financing structures in the

submarine cable marketplace, the

International Bureau has undertaken a

review of its policies for licensing

submarine cables. The result of this

review is the initiation of this

proceeding to establish streamlined

rules for processing applications for

submarine cable landing licenses.

The streamlining proposal in the

NPRM is designed to provide guidance

for industry in submitting applications

and for the Commission in reviewing

such applications. The current

precedent analyzing competitive issues

in the submarine cable market is not

extensive. In the absence of extensive

precedent, the guidance contained in

the proposed streamlining options

should help ensure expeditious action

on applications. In addition, the

streamlining options in this NPRM seek

to provide incentives for the

development of facilities-based

competition and capacity expansion to

meet increasing demands.

This approach reflects broad input

from participants in the submarine cable

industry. In November 1999 the

International Bureau held a Public

Forum and has held numerous informal

meetings with individual industry

participants to solicit views about ways

the Commission might improve its

regulation of the submarine cable

landing licensing process to further

promote consumer benefits from

increased cable capacity and facilitiesbased competition. Industry participants

expressed three objectives: expedited

processing of applications, careful

review of certain applications to guard

against anticompetitive behavior, and

encouragement of pro-competitive

licensing procedures in other countries.

To accomplish and balance these three

objectives, the NPRM proposes

streamlining that reflects procompetitive policies. This approach is

designed to provide more certainty and

flexibility for participants in the

application process, to promote

increased investment and infrastructure

development by multiple providers, and

to decrease application processing time.

To achieve these goals, the NPRM

proposes a mechanism under which an

applicant for a submarine cable landing

license will have three options to

qualify presumptively for grant on a

streamlined basis. The NPRM proposes

the following three streamlining

options: (1) A demonstration that the

route on which the proposed cable

would operate is or will become

competitive; (2) a demonstration of

sufficient independence of control of

the proposed cable from control of

existing capacity on the route; or (3) the

existence of certain pro-competitive

arrangements. We believe that, on

balance, the streamlining policies

proposed in the NPRM are procompetitive, and that, if an application

falls within one of these three

categories, we can presume that it is

unlikely that we will have competitive

concerns about the cable. We note that,

if an application does not qualify for

streamlining, it will be reviewed on a

non-streamlined basis without

prejudice.

Our proposal to streamline the

submarine cable landing licensing

process is part of a continuing

streamlining effort. The proposal’s

structure of identifying categories of

applications eligible for streamlined

processing is consistent with our

process for streamlining Section 214

applications. The Commission

continually seeks ways to grant licenses

more quickly to allow parties to enter

the market rapidly, especially as new

technological developments make speed

to market crucial for firms competing in

the ever changing Internet-driven

communications market.

B. Legal Basis

The NPRM is adopted pursuant to

Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201–255, 303(r)

of the Communications Act as amended,

47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201–255,

and the Cable Landing License Act, 47

U.S.C. 34 through 39 and Executive

Order No. 10530, Sec. 5(a), reprinted as

amended in 3 U.S.C. 301.

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposals Will Apply

The RFA directs agencies to provide

a description of, and, where feasible,

estimate of the number of small entities

that may be affected by the proposals, if

adopted. The Regulatory Flexibility Act

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as

having the same meaning as the terms

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’

and ‘‘small business concern’’ under

Section 3 of 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

SBA.

The SBA has developed a definition

of small entities for telephone

communications companies other than

radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41619

The Census Bureau reports that there

were 2,321 such companies that had

been operating for at least one year at

the end of 1992. According to the SBA’s

definition, a wireline telephone

company is a small business if it

employs no more than 1,500 persons.

All but 26 of the 2,321 wireline

companies listed by the Census Bureau

were reported to have fewer than 1,000

employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those

companies had more than 1,500

employees, there would still be 2,295

wireline companies that might qualify

as small entities or small incumbent

LECs. Although it seems certain that

some of these carriers are not

independently owned and operated, we

are unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of wireline

carriers and service providers that

would qualify as small business

concerns under the SBA’s definition.

Consequently, we estimate that fewer

than 2,295 of these wireline companies

are small entities that might be affected

by these proposals.

Specifically, the streamlining options

contained in the NPRM apply to entities

applying for a license to land or operate

submarine cables under the Cable

Landing License Act, (or entities

applying to transfer control of existing

submarine cable landing licenses). The

proposals, however, may affect other

entities as well, including users of

submarine cable service such as Internet

service providers (ISPs) that lease

capacity or purchase indefeasible rights

of use (IRUs) on cable systems. The

Commission, therefore, encourages

these entities to comment on the

proposals in the NPRM. The proposals

are intended to reduce the burden on all

applicants regardless of size, by

permitting applicants to seek to have

their applications qualify presumptively

for grant on a streamlined basis. At this

time, we are not certain as to the

number of small entities that will be

affected by the proposals. Agency data

indicates there have been approximately

50 cable landing applications filed with

the Commission since 1992, but the

total number of licensees is difficult to

determine, because many licenses are

jointly held by several licensees. Based

on this information, we would estimate

that there could be 50 or fewer

applicants that might be a small entity.

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

The reporting requirements proposed

in the NPRM are voluntary and should

not impose specific burdens on small

entities. If an applicant for a submarine

cable landing license wishes its

application to qualify presumptively for

a grant on a streamlined basis, the

applicant could demonstrate that its

application conforms to any one of the

three streamlining options described in

the NPRM. The NPRM seeks comment

on the kinds of demonstrations an

applicant could make to qualify for

streamlining under the proposals.

The documentation proposed by the

NPRM is not standardized. The

information is unique to the applicant.

Although the information could be

submitted in a standardized format,

creating such a format would impose a

burden on an applicant because the

applicant has several options from

which to choose for streamlined

processing. For example, the NPRM

suggests types of documentation

including cable landing license

applications, Commission Orders, the

International Bureau’s annual Circuit

Status Report, the various C&MAs or

capacity purchase agreements for the

cables, and industry press releases. The

NPRM also seeks comment on other

types of documentation that would be

useful for applicants seeking to qualify

for the streamlining options proposed in

the NPRM.

In addition, it is not possible or

practical to estimate the costs and

burdens associated with the

documentation applicants would need

to submit to demonstrate satisfaction of

the streamlining options. We believe

that the applicant’s documentation

would be information that is maintained

by the applicant in the normal course of

business, and as such would not impose

a significant burden on the applicant.

We are seeking comments on possible

costs and burdens associated with the

documentation applicants would need

to submit to qualify for streamlining

under the options outlined in the

NPRM.

E. 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

compliancor reporting requirements

under the rule for small entities; (3) the

use of performance, rather than design,

standards; and (4) an exemption from

coverage or the rule, or any part thereof,

for small entities.

The proposals in this NPRM are

designed to provide more certainty and

flexibility for applicants, encourage

investment and infrastructure

development by multiple providers,

expand available submarine cable

capacity, and decrease application

processing time. This may benefit small

entities especially because the proposals

would facilitate entry into the

submarine cable market and expand

international services. The Commission

has proposed the following three

options from which an entity may

choose to qualify presumptively for

streamlined processing: (1) A

demonstration that the route on which

the proposed cable would operate is or

will become competitive; (2) a

demonstration of sufficient

independence of control of the proposed

cable from control of existing capacity

on the route; or (3) the existence of

certain pro-competitive arrangements.

We request comment on these three

streamlining options.

We request comment on whether

small entities would be adversely

affected by the proposals herein and

whether the proposals will enable small

entities to respond to the demands of

the market with minimum regulatory

oversight, delays, and expenses. We

believe that our proposals will promote

the rapid expansion of capacity and

facilities-based competition, which will

result in innovation and lower prices for

U.S. consumers of international

telecommunications services. We

believe that our proposals would have

either no impact, or would reduce, any

economic burdens on small entities.

The NPRM seeks comment on policies

of particular benefit to small entities.

First, with respect to the proposal

regarding which entities need to apply

for cable landing licenses, the NPRM

notes that the greater a firm’s

investment in a cable system, the greater

ability the firm has to influence the way

in which a cable is operated. The NPRM

further notes that firms with a greater

ability to affect the operation of a cable

system would expect to be subject to all

conditions and responsibilities that that

come with the right to land or operate

the cable system. The NPRM notes that

entities with minimal investment in a

cable system, on the other hand, do not

have the same ability to affect the

operation of the cable system. There is

not the same need, therefore, to subject

these entities to the conditions and

responsibilities that come with a cable

landing license. Under the proposal in

the NPRM, therefore, other than landing

station owners, entities with less than a

five percent ownership interest in a

cable system would not need to be

41620 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

included as an applicant for the cable

landing license for a proposed cable.

The NPRM notes that, under a five

percent or greater ownership threshold,

fewer entities will be required to obtain

licenses than under the current practice.

This means that fewer entities will be

subject to the conditions and

responsibilities that come with the right

to land or operate a cable. The NPRM

seeks comment on whether a different

percentage would be appropriate to

accomplish these goals. In addition, the

NPRM provides that an entity that is a

licensee for an existing submarine cable

but does not own a landing station and

has less than a five percent ownership

interest in the cable, may file with the

Commission a request that its license be

relinquished.

F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

None.

Ordering Clauses

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 1,

4(i) and (j), 201–255 303(r) of the

Communications Act as amended, 47

U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201–255,

303(r), and the Cable Landing License

Act, 47 U.S.C. 34 through 39 and

Executive Order No. 10530, Sec. 5(a),

reprinted as amended in 3 U.S.C. 301,

this notice of proposed rulemaking is

hereby adopted and comments are

requested.

The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this notice of proposed rulemaking,

including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Act Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

Communications common carriers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Telecommunications

Miscellaneous rules relating to common

carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–17027 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–10–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA–00–1418, MM Docket No. 00–118, RM–

9757]

Digital Television Broadcast Service;

Lexington, KY

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by WKYT

Licensee Corporation, licensee of station

WKYT–TV, NTSC Channel 27,

Lexington, Kentucky, requesting the

substitution of DTV Channel 13 for

station WKYT–TV’s assigned DTV

Channel 59. DTV Channel 13 can be

allotted to Lexington, Kentucky, in

compliance with the principle

community coverage requirements of

Section 73.625(a) at coordinates (38–02–

23 N. and 84–24–10 W). DTV Channel

13 can be allotted to Lexington with a

power of 5.0 (kW) and a height above

average terrain (HAAT) 300 meters.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before August 21, 2000, and reply

comments on or before September 5,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

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: Robert A. Beizer,

Secretary, WKYT License Corporation,

1201 New York Avenue, NW., Suite

1000, Washington, DC 20005–3917

(Petitioner).

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.

00–1418, adopted June 26, 2000, and

released June 29, 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, S.W.,

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. 00–17045 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA–1417, MM Docket No. 00–117, RM–

9810]

Digital Television Broadcast Service;

Salem, OR

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Paxson

Salem License, Inc., licensee of station

KPXG(TV), NTSC Channel 22, Salem,

Oregon, requesting the substitution of

DTV Channel 4 for DTV Channel 20.

DTV Channel 4 can be allotted to Salem,

Oregon, in compliance with the

principle community coverage

requirements of Section 73.625(a) at

coordinates (45–30–58 N. and 122–43–

59 W.) with a power of 17 (kW) and a

height above average terrain (HAT) 455

meters. However, since the community

of Salem is located within 400

kilometers of the U.S. Canadian border,

concurrence by the Canadian

government must be obtained for this

proposal.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before August 21, 2000, and reply

comments on or before September 5,

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: Scott S. Patrick,

Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, 1200 New

Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 800,

Washington, DC 20036–6802 (Counsel

for Paxson Salem License, Inc.).