Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 65389

York City, NY will be announced at a

later date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie Friedman, Office of Information

and Consumer Affairs, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration,

Room N–3647, U.S. Department of

Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20210, Telephone (202)

219–8148, FAX (202) 219–5986.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA

proposed a new standard for

occupational exposure to tuberculosis

on October 17, 1997 (62 FR 54160). The

deadline for submitting written

comments was December 16, 1997. On

November 5, 1997, five organizations

representing more than 4 million

individuals and 5,300 facilities

potentially affected by the proposed

standard, collectively requested that

OSHA consider extending the public

comment period by a minimum of 30

days. Citing the complexity and the farreaching implications of the proposed

standard, these organizations stated that

they believed that the current deadline

of December 16, 1997, provided

insufficient time for a thorough

examination and consideration of the

important issues. A similar request was

made by the American Medical

Association, which urged OSHA to

extend the deadline to allow sufficient

time for a complete and thoughtful

analysis of the proposed TB standard.

OSHA considers the testimony to be

offered by these organizations to be

important and necessary for the

development of the final rule. In

addition, OSHA recognizes that other

parties that will be affected by the

rulemaking may need more time to

prepare their comments and testimony.

In order to accommodate these

organizations and others, OSHA has

extended the comment period and has

rescheduled the informal public

hearings in Washington, D.C.

The deadline for written comments

and Notices of Intention to Appear at

the informal public hearings is being

extended from December 16, 1997, to

February 13, 1998. The deadline for

submission of testimony for parties

requesting more than 10 minutes at the

public hearings or submitting

documentary evidence is being

extended from December 31, 1997, to

February 27, 1998. The hearing

presently scheduled to begin on

February 3, 1998 in Washington, D.C., is

being rescheduled to begin on April 7,

1998.

In addition to the informal public

hearings in Washington D.C., three sites

are being added: Chicago, IL, and Los

Angeles, CA, and New York City, NY.

Because the proposed standard will

impact employees and employers across

the nation, the Agency believes that is

appropriate to hold public hearings at

additional sites in order to give parties

who may not be able to attend the

hearings in Washington, D.C., an

opportunity to participate in the public

hearing process. OSHA has found that

the hearings provide an important

forum for interested parties to submit

their comments and concerns on

OSHA’s proposed rulemakings and that

the hearings provide the Agency with

valuable information in developing its

final standards.

Public Participation

Persons desiring to participate at the

hearings must submit four copies of a

Notice of Intention to Appear containing

the following information:

(1) The name, address, and telephone

number of each person to appear;

(2) The hearing site that the party is

requesting to attend;

(3) The capacity in which the person

will appear;

(4) The approximate amount of time

requested for the presentation;

(5) The specific issues that will be

addressed;

(6) A detailed statement of the

position that will be taken with respect

to each issue addressed;

(7) Whether the party intends to

submit documentary evidence, and if so,

a brief summary of that evidence; and

(8) Whether the party wishes to testify

on the days set aside to focus on

homeless shelters.

A tentative schedule of appearances at

the hearings will be prepared and

distributed to parties who have

submitted Notices of Intention to

Appear so parties will know when

issues that concern them are likely to be

raised at the hearing.

Filing of Testimony and Evidence

Before Hearings

Any party requesting more than 10

minutes for a presentation at the

hearing, or who will present

documentary evidence, must submit

four copies of the complete text of the

testimony, including any documentary

evidence to be presented at the hearing

to the Docket Officer at the above

address.

Each submission will be reviewed in

light of the amount of time requested in

the Notice of Intention to Appear. In

those instances where the information

contained in the submission does not

justify the amount of time requested, a

more appropriate amount of time will be

allocated and the participant will be

notified of that fact.

Any party who has not substantially

complied with this requirement may be

limited to a 10-minute presentation.

Any party who has not filed a Notice of

Intention to Appear may be allowed to

testify, as time permits, at the discretion

of the Administrative Law Judge.

OSHA emphasizes that the hearing is

open to the public, and that interested

persons are welcome to attend.

However, only persons who have filed

Notices of Intention to Appear will be

entitled to ask questions and otherwise

participate fully in the proceeding.

Authority

This document has been prepared

under the direction of Charles N.

Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20210.

It is issued under section 6(b) of the

Occupational Safety Health Act (29

U.S.C. 655), Secretary of Labor’s Order

6–96, (62 FR 111) and 29 CFR Part 1911.

Signed at Washington, D.C. on this 9th day

of December, 1997.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 97–32546 Filed 12–9–97; 3:59 pm]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 96–45 and 97–160; DA 97–

2372]

Universal Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; guidance for

design and submission of proposed

models.

SUMMARY: The Common Carrier Bureau

(Bureau) provided guidance to

proponents of forward-looking cost

models in the universal service

proceeding on issues related to

customer location and outside plant

design. The Bureau provided this

guidance to improve the models that the

Commission will consider to select a

mechanism for determining non-rural

carriers’ forward-looking cost to provide

the supported services. This guidance is

intended to encourage model

proponents to alter their models to

conform them to the guidance provided

in this Public Notice. Models

conforming to the guidance provided in

this Public Notice are more likely to be

considered favorably in this proceeding.
65390 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules

DATES: Proponents of a model should

file their submission on or before

December 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20052. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further

instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chuck Keller, Common Carrier Bureau,

Accounting and Audits Division,

Universal Service Branch, (202) 418–

7400, or via E-mail to ‘‘ckeller@fcc.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Released: November 13, 1997.

In the Universal Service Order

released May 8, 1997, the Commission,

acting on the recommendation of the

Federal-State Joint Board, concluded

that non-rural carriers providing

supported services to rural, insular, and

high cost areas (collectively referred to

as high cost areas) should receive

universal service support based on the

forward-looking cost of providing the

supported services. (See Federal-State

Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint

Board), CC Docket No. 96–45, Report

and Order, FCC 97–157 (62 FR 32862,

June 1997) (Order)). The Commission

determined that it could not select a

mechanism for computing forwardlooking costs because none of the

mechanisms that had been submitted for

consideration was sufficiently

developed at that time. The Commission

stated that it would continue to review

two cost models, the Hatfield Model and

the Benchmark Cost Proxy Model (the

BCPM). The Commission stated that it

would select a forward-looking

economic cost mechanism with

platform design features and input

values by August 1998.

In a Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in this proceeding

(FNPRM), the Commission established a

multi-step approach to refining and

selecting a mechanism for determining

a non-rural carrier’s forward-looking

economic cost of providing supported

services to high cost areas. (See FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service,

Forward-Looking Mechanism for High

Cost Support for Non-Rural LECLs, CC

Docket Nos. 96–45 and 97–160, Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC

97–256 (62 FR 42457, August

1997)(FNPRM)). The Commission

specified that the Common Carrier

Bureau (Bureau) would ‘‘issue orders

and public notices on a regular basis

explaining its analysis of the model

submissions and industry comments

and to select particular design features.’’

The Commission further stated its

expectation that ‘‘such guidance from

the Bureau will provide the proponents

with necessary direction to refine their

models.’’

In meetings with proponents of the

BCPM and the Hatfield model and other

interested parties, the Bureau staff has

encouraged the continued evolution and

refinement of the models. This Public

Notice offers guidance to proponents of

models regarding the customer location

and outside plant platform design issues

raised in the FNPRM. In the Order, the

Commission stated its ‘‘anticipat[ion]

that by the end of the year [it] will

choose a specific model’’ as the platform

for a federal mechanism. In order to

choose a ‘‘specific model,’’ however, the

Commission must evaluate and compare

completed versions of the models. The

Bureau therefore requests that parties

seeking consideration of their model as

the platform for a federal mechanism

submit their models within four weeks

after the release of this Public Notice.

Models that conform to the guidance in

this Public Notice are likely to be

considered more favorably in this

proceeding.

The Commission stated in the FNPRM

that it may select a model submitted to

the Commission by a proponent, or it

may select a hybrid model incorporating

the best features of proposed models

and design components developed by

the Commission staff or other parties.

On October 31, 1997, staff members of

the Common Carrier Bureau proposed

an alternate approach to customer

location and outside plant design issues

in the form of a Hybrid Cost Proxy

Model (HCPM). The HCPM is in many

respects a hybrid of the BCPM and the

Hatfield model, although it also

contains features that differ from both

the BCPM and the Hatfield model. The

Bureau anticipates that the Commission

will consider the HCPM as an

alternative to the customer location and

outside plant design modules in the

BCPM and the Hatfield model. The

Bureau observes, however, that the

FNPRM leaves open the possibility that

the Commission may consider other

models or other components of models

in selecting the best mechanism for

determining non-rural carriers’ forward

looking cost for providing the supported

services.

I. Customer Location

A. Geocode Data

The FNPRM requested comment on

the use of data that associate the

location of each customer with

latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates

(geocode data) in a forward-looking

economic cost mechanism. Many

commenters agree that geocode data,

which provide the actual geographic

location of customers, are preferable to

algorithms intended to estimate

customer locations based on Census

data or other information regarding the

number of customers in a given

geographic area. Because assumptions

about the location of customers have a

large impact on loop length

calculations, the use of more accurate

customer location data is consistent

with the criterion specified in the Order

that ‘‘a model’s average loop length

should reflect the incumbent carrier’s

actual average loop length.’’ Some

commenters, however, question the

feasibility of using geocode data in the

federal mechanism because of the lack

of reliable data in rural areas and the

burden of developing such data. The

Bureau recommends that models be

capable of accepting and using geocode

data to the extent that such data are

available and reliable.

B. Wire Center Boundaries

In their evaluation of previous

versions of cost models submitted to the

Commission, State members of the Joint

Board have noted that inaccurately

mapping customers to a wire center may

result in inaccurate line counts and

impede the determination of the most

efficient engineering practices for

serving that wire center. Through the

model development process, the BCPM

and the Hatfield model have been

refined so that both models determine

wire center boundaries based, at least in

part, on a database provided by

Business Location Research (BLR). The

BCPM has improved the accuracy of the

BLR data it uses by using wire center

boundary data based on Census Blocks

(CBs), rather than the larger Census

Block Groups (CBGs). The Hatfield

model also uses BLR data at the Census

Block-level, although its proponents

have stated that they intend to use the

Census Block Group data in isolated

instances where those data appear to be

more accurate. This refinement

decreases the discrepancies between the

two industry-proposed models.

Consistent with the criterion specified

in the Order that ‘‘[w]ire center line

counts should equal actual ILEC wire

center line counts’’ however, the Bureau

recommends that models be capable of

accepting wire center boundary data in

standard Geographic Information

System (GIS) format from any source

that the Commission finds may estimate

those boundaries more accurately.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 65391

II. Outside Plant Design

A. Documentation of Assumptions

The Order requires that cost models

employ the ‘‘least-cost, most-efficient

and reasonable technology for providing

the supported services that is currently

being deployed,’’ and that all

engineering assumptions be reasonable.

Furthermore, the Order also requires the

models’ algorithms, data, and

assumptions to be open and verifiable.

These criteria suggest that outside plant

design should be considered both from

an engineering perspective, to ensure

that the network provides the type and

quality of service specified in the Order,

and from an economic perspective, to

ensure that the network design

minimizes cost and maximizes

efficiency. Moreover, the requirement

that assumptions be open and verifiable

ensures that the Commission can

confirm that the other criteria have been

met. To the extent that models’

algorithms do not explicitly explore

different loop architectures in varying

situations and select the least-cost

alternative for that particular situation,

the Bureau recommends that model

proponents provide detailed

documentation that explains and

justifies any assumptions and

engineering rules of thumb that their

models employ. This documentation

should demonstrate how these

assumptions and rules of thumb meet

the Order’s requirement that a model

employ the least-cost, most-efficient,

and reasonable technology.

One assumption for which model

proponents should provide

documentation is a model’s algorithm

for deploying digital loop carrier (DLC)

devices. For example, the basic outside

plant design structures presently

employed in the BCPM and the Hatfield

model involve running optical fiber

feeder cables from the central office to

a point within designated serving areas

and serving the customers within each

serving area with copper distribution

cables from a DLC device within the

serving area. Because DLC devices are

expensive, costs per customer can be

minimized by connecting larger

numbers of customers to each device,

subject to the DLC’s capacity limitations

and the limits on the length of the

copper cable between the DLC and the

customer premises. The BCPM and the

Hatfield model currently determine

which customers are located in a given

serving area using either grids (BCPM)

or clusters (Hatfield). Both approaches

must account for the fact that,

particularly in rural areas, some

customers are located relatively far from

other customers, and therefore are

difficult to associate with any single

serving area. Presently, the Hatfield

model serves geographically isolated

customers with the nearest DLC, while

the BCPM will place a separate DLC in

grids with only a small number of

customers. The Bureau recommends

that proponents of a model demonstrate

how their approaches to deploying DLC

devices employ the least-cost, mostefficient, and reasonable technology, as

required by the Commission’s Order.

Another algorithm that is relevant to

whether a model has employed the

least-cost, most-efficient, and reasonable

technology is a model’s algorithm for

feeder routes. Earlier versions of the

BCPM and the Hatfield model extended

four fiber feeder cables, at 90 degree

angles from each other, from each

central office in all cases. More recent

iterations of these models have

eliminated feeder cables to quadrants

with no population and adjusted feeder

route angles directing feeder cables to

areas of population concentration.

Although these approaches seem to

represent improvements in the designs

of these industry-proposed models, the

Bureau recommends that each

proponent of a model demonstrate how

their feeder routing algorithms meet the

criterion of being the least-cost, mostefficient, and reasonable technology

currently being deployed.

In addition to the examples of DLC

placement and feeder routing, the

Bureau recommends that model

proponents demonstrate how every

aspect of their outside plant design

approach is consistent with the leastcost criterion, while maintaining the

network standards established in the

Order.

B. Advanced Services

The Commission specified in the

Order that the loop design in a forwardlooking mechanism ‘‘should not impede

the provision of advanced services.’’ For

example, the Commission determined

that loading coils may impede advanced

services such as high-speed data

transmission and therefore disallowed

their use in a model. The Bureau

recommends that model proponents

explain their assumptions about

network configurations and capacity,

and explain why such assumptions are

reasonable and consistent with common

configurations and capabilities of

networks of non-rural carriers. For

example, model proponents should

demonstrate how their models permit

standard customer premises equipment

(CPE) available to consumers today,

such as 28.8 kbps or 56 kbps modems,

to perform at speeds at least as fast as

the same CPE can perform on the typical

existing network of a non-rural carrier.

The Commission also concluded that

the definition of supported services

should ‘‘advance with technology’’ and

will be re-examined in light of ‘‘changes

in technology, network capacity,

consumer demand, and service

deployment.’’ The Bureau therefore

recommends that models incorporate

sufficient flexibility in their loop design

algorithms so that the platform of the

selected model does not have to be

rebuilt in the event that the Commission

revises the definition of universal

service.

C. Wireless Threshold

In the FNPRM, the Commission

sought comment on whether a model

should assume that, if the loop

investment for a single customer

exceeds a certain threshold, an efficient

carrier would substitute wireless service

for wireline service. The Commission’s

directive that a cost model use the

‘‘least-cost, most-efficient, and

reasonable technology’’ suggests that a

model should be able to use information

about the costs of wireless service if the

Commission concludes that such data

are available and reliable. Because the

Commission also determined that

support calculations should be based on

a geographic area that is the size of a

wire center or smaller, and the

geographic area for estimating costs may

not be larger than the support area, the

Bureau recommends that models be

capable of accommodating as inputs

wireless cost thresholds at the level of

the wire center or a smaller geographic

unit.

D. Fiber-Copper Cross-Over Point

The fiber-copper cross-over point

determines where the network will

employ optical fiber cable rather than

copper cable in its feeder plant. The

Commission specified in the Order that

a model ‘‘must include the capability to

examine and modify the critical

assumptions and engineering principles

* * * includ[ing] * * * fiber-copper

cross-over points.’’ While the BCPM

assumes that the maximum copper loop

length may be 12,000 feet and the

Hatfield model assumes that the

maximum copper loop length may be

18,000 feet, the Commission noted in

the FNPRM that neither proponent has

documented that its assumption is the

least-cost alternative. In order for the

Commission to better understand the

cost differences associated with each of

these assumptions, the Bureau

recommends that proponents of models

provide comparative outputs for each of

the following five states, using both the
65392 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules

12,000 foot standard and the 18,000 foot

standard: Florida, Georgia, Maryland,

Missouri, and Montana.

E. Proprietary or Confidential

Information

In light of the Commission’s

requirement in the Order that ‘‘all

underlying data, formulae,

computations, and software associated

with the model must be available to

interested parties for review and

comment,’’ the Bureau recommends that

each model proponent submit detailed

descriptions of all information or

software alleged to be confidential,

proprietary, or otherwise unavailable to

the public that is used either in the

model or in a preprocessing module.

The descriptions should include

estimates of the costs and procedures

that may be associated with making the

information or software available to the

Commission and to the administrator of

the universal service support

mechanisms.

III. Follow-Up Requirements

The Commission established criteria

for its forward-looking economic cost

mechanism in the Order. The Bureau

recommends that model proponents

ensure that their modules for

determining the location of customers

and estimating outside plant investment

comply with all of the criteria set out in

the Order, in addition to the

recommendations in this Public Notice.

The Bureau recognizes that

proponents of models may need to make

certain changes to their models to bring

them into conformity with the guidance

provided in this public notice. Within

four weeks from the release date of this

public notice, any proponents of models

should submit their models for

consideration by the Commission. To

facilitate that process and the

Commission’s review, models should be

accompanied by a cover letter

providing: (1) A list of the items

discussed above with which their model

already is in conformity and a

description of how their model is in

conformity with those items, and; (2) a

listing of the items with which their

model is not yet in conformity. The

Bureau anticipates that the models

submitted at that time will be evaluated

by the Commission in selecting the

platform for the federal mechanism.

IV. Procedural Matters

Within four weeks of the release date

of this Public Notice, proponents of a

model should file an original and three

(3) copies of their submission,

referencing CC Dockets Nos. 96–45 and

97–160, with the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, N.W., Room 222,

Washington, DC 20554. Proponents

should also provide four (4) copies of

their submission to Chuck Keller of the

Universal Service Branch, 2100 M

Street, N.W., Room 8918, Washington,

D.C. 20554.

Federal Communications Commission.

Timothy A. Peterson,

Deputy Division Chief, Common Carrier

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–31117 Filed 12–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MM Docket No. 97–234; GC Docket No.

92–52; GEN Docket No. 90–264, FCC 97–

397]

Competitive Bidding for Commercial

Broadcast and Instructional Television

Fixed Service Licenses; Comparative

Broadcast Hearings

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) seeks comment on

proposed competitive bidding

procedures that will apply to mutually

exclusive applications for licenses to

provide commercial AM radio, FM

radio, analog television, low power

television, and FM or TV translator

service. The proposed auction

procedures implement the Balanced

Budget Act of 1997, which expanded

the FCC’s auction authority to require

that it use auctions to award virtually all

licenses. The FCC also proposes to use

auctions to resolve certain pending

commercial broadcast applications filed

before July 1, 1997, which under the

statute may be resolved by either

auction or comparative hearings.

Auctions allow the FCC to award

licenses more efficiently than

comparative hearings, and using

auctions to decide the pre-July 1, 1997

applications for new commercial radio

or television broadcast stations allows

the FCC to end the stay in effect since

1994 on comparative broadcast initial

licensing cases. But the FCC seeks

comment on whether there are special

equitable considerations that warrant

using comparative hearings to decide

some of the pre-July 1 applications.

Comment is also sought on whether the

FCC must or should use auctions to

award licenses in the Instructional

Television Fixed Service, and on how to

resolve pending comparative renewal

cases, which are beyond the FCC’s

auction authority.

DATES: Comments are due January 26,

1998; Reply Comments are due February

17, 1998. Written comments by the

public on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due January

26, 1998. Written comments must be

submitted by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/

or modified information collections on

or before February 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to the Office

of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

222, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20554. Copies of these pleadings

should also be sent to the Mass Media

Bureau, Video Services Division (Room

702) and Audio Services Division

(Room 302), 1919 M St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554, and the Office

of General Counsel, Room 610, 1919 M

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Riffer and S. Lee Martin, Office of

General Counsel, (202) 418–1720,

Jerianne Timmerman, Video Services

Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–1643, and Lisa Scanlan, Audio

Services Division, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2720. For additional

information concerning the information

collections contained in this Notice

contact Judy Boley at 202–418–0214, or

via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, in MM Docket

No. 97–234, GC Docket No. 92–52, and

GEN Docket No. 90–264, adopted

November 25, 1997 and released

November 26, 1997. The complete text

of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

is available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554,

and may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800 (phone), (202) 857–3805

(facsimile), 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036.