Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58721

fully indemnify earthquake

policyholders after a major quake.

There was a suggestion that a

requirement for an eligibility criterion

on earthquake insurance would be

viable only if FEMA were to promote a

nationwide pool for earthquake

coverage for public entities. This

suggestion rests on the presumption that

the commercial insurance market does

not have the capacity to deal with the

scope of the coverage needed. Along

these lines, other writers suggest that we

establish a National Earthquake

Program, similar to the National Flood

Insurance Program.

Other than the comments on

earthquake insurance, there were

questions about the meaning of

‘‘highest-valued single location.’’ There

was also the suggestion that we provide

for a cap on all risk insurance, just as

we do for wind and earthquake in our

insurance schedule.

Premium Thresholds

There was broad agreement with the

need for a safety net provision in the

form of a premium threshold. While

some find it to be reasonable, most

writers tell us that the $.30 per $100 is

far too high, based on what they

currently pay. For example, some

entities are telling us that they pay just

a few pennies per $100 for their hazard

insurance. Many writers also point out

that by using an absolute dollar

threshold, insurance companies will

quickly price their products to meet that

threshold.

Quite a few writers suggest that a

threshold based on a percentage of an

entity’s operating budget would be a

better way of offering a safety net. No

writer suggested an actual percentage to

be used in this regard.

Self-Insurance

There is a lot of interest in this area.

All comments support the idea that selfinsurance be an option for all entities.

Several writers suggest that there should

be specific, stringent requirements for

self-insurance—for example, the

retention of a dedicated fund—but, most

simply state that the self-insurance

should be an option to commercial

insurance. In many cases, writers felt

that self-insurance is a more sensible

risk management technique than

commercial insurance.

In this context, quite a few writers

speak to the ‘‘all or nothing’’ provision

of Option 3. They refer to the notion

that a failure to have adequate insurance

in force would result in zero aid for a

damaged building—the ‘‘all or nothing’’

provision. They suggest that this would

be unreasonable, particularly for a very

low probability hazard. The remedy put

forth is to treat an uninsured building as

self-insured, which would disqualify it

for Public Assistance below our

schedule of eligibility criteria coverage,

but would allow it to remain qualified

for Public Assistance above that

amount.

Deductibles

This is one area where we received

opposing viewpoints.

Some writers tell us that deductibles

are, by their very nature, the

responsibility of the insured, and

should not be funded by FEMA. They

point out that the size of the deductible

is a major factor for the premium

amount, and is a calculated business

decision on the part of the building

owner. It is their expression of risk

tolerance or risk aversion, and should be

their issue, not FEMA’s. Other, more

numerous writers are not only

comfortable with the concept of

deductibles being funded under the

program, but offered suggestions for

increasing the amounts. One person

suggests increasing the deductible for

blanket flood coverage from $25,000 to

$100,000 if the loss limits exceed 150

percent of the NFIP maximum coverage.

The suggestion is that this would

encourage building owners to carry

higher limit flood policies, and that it

would better correspond to the actual

deductibles associated with most

blanket flood policies. Another person

suggests that we eliminate the

deductible cap of $100,000 for wind

coverage, but reduce the amount that we

would fund from 5 percent to 2 percent,

which, the commenter tells us, is the

industry standard.

The writers express concerns that if

they had a higher deductible than the

amount we would fund they would not

be eligible for FEMA assistance. This

misconception caused concerns similar

to the concerns related to the ‘‘all or

nothing’’ provision.

Incentives

There is strong support for some form

of incentive regarding a provision to

condition future Public Assistance on

insurance being in place at the time of

the disaster. Fifty-two respondents favor

incentives for purchasing insurance.

However, the vast majority limit their

comments to broad statements in

support of the concept, rather than spell

out specific ways of implementing an

incentive arrangement.

Administrative Burdens

Many respondents are concerned that

an eligibility criterion for pre-disaster

insurance will result in added delays

and problems in obtaining Public

Assistance grants. The thought is that

FEMA would have to determine

whether adequate property insurance is

in effect on an applicant’s buildings at

the time of the disaster. This would

require insurance experts, and would

slow and complicate the process of

awarding grants. Further, some

respondents suggested that smaller

Public Assistance applicants may not

presently have property insurance on

their buildings. A pre-disaster insurance

eligibility criterion would necessitate

them buying property insurance for the

first time, and that, in so doing, they

would encounter significant

administrative burdens.

III. Next Steps

While we have received many

valuable comments on this subject, we

are still seeking information on the

feasibility of encouraging new or

expanded property insurance coverage

as a means to improving risk

management analysis and decisions

about public and certain private nonprofit buildings. For this reason, and in

order to assist us in the evaluation of

options, as well as to establish a

benchmark for whatever criteria are

eventually implemented, we plan to

perform a study of public entity

building insurance coverage.

Dated: September 20, 2000.

James L. Witt,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–25017 Filed 9–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 96–45; FCC 00–332]

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service: Promoting Deployment and

Subscribership in Unserved and

Underserved Areas, Including Tribal

and Insular Areas

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rules.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission seeks additional comment

on how to extend the enhanced Lifeline

and Link Up measures to qualifying

low-income consumers living in areas or

communities that are ‘‘near

reservations.’’ Specifically, the

Commission seeks comment on how to

define geographic areas that are adjacent

to the reservations, consistent with our

58722 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and

Link Up support to the most

underserved areas of our Nation.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

October 12, 2000 and reply comments

are due on or before October 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Garnett, Attorney, Common Carrier

Bureau, Accounting Policy Division,

(202) 418–7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC

Docket No. 96–45 released on August

31, 2000. The full text of this document

is available for public inspection during

regular business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445

Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.,

20554.

I. Introduction

1. We stay the implementation of

enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support

for low-income consumers living near

reservations pending resolution of the

issues discussed in the attached Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(FNPRM). In this document, we seek

additional comment on how to extend

the enhanced Lifeline and Link Up

measures to qualifying low-income

consumers living in areas or

communities that are ‘‘near

reservations.’’ Specifically, we seek

comment on how to define geographic

areas that are adjacent to the

reservations, consistent with our goal of

targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link Up

support to the most underserved areas

of our Nation. Finally, as described in

greater detail, we extend until

September 22, 2000, the date by which

carriers may file data in order to receive

support during the calendar year 2000

for enhanced Lifeline and Link Up

services provided during the fourth

quarter 2000.

II. Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

2. In this document, we seek

additional comment on how to extend

the enhanced Lifeline and Link Up

measures to qualifying low-income

consumers living in areas or

communities that are near reservations.

Specifically, we seek comment on how

to define geographic areas that are

adjacent to the reservations or are

otherwise a part of the reservation’s

community of interest, in a manner that

is consistent with our goal of targeting

enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support

to the most underserved segments of the

Nation. We ask commenters to address

whether the targeting of enhanced

Lifeline and Link Up support to areas or

communities that are ‘‘near

reservations,’’ as that term is defined in

section 20.1(r) of the BIA regulations, is

an effective way to target support to the

most isolated, impoverished, and

underserved regions of the country. We

also invite comment on alternative ways

of defining the geographic areas that are

near reservations to ensure that

enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support

is targeted to qualifying low-income

consumers living in areas adjacent to, or

near, reservations that share many of the

same characteristics as the reservations.

In addition, to the extent that using the

BIA definition of ‘‘near reservations’’ to

target support as intended in the

Twelfth Report and Order, 65 FR 47941

(August 14, 2000), is not effective, we

seek comment generally on how we

might achieve our goal of serving

geographically isolated, impoverished

areas that are characterized by low

subscribership.

3. Commenters are encouraged to

provide detailed information to assist us

in determining how enhanced Lifeline

and Link Up support should be targeted.

Such information should include the

population of the geographical area, the

number of income-eligible subscribers,

the distance of each area from the

nearest reservation, whether there is any

legal recognition of that area by the BIA,

whether the area includes or is part of

a Metropolitan Statistical Area, and the

level of telephone subscribership in the

area. We especially seek input on these

issues from the state members of the

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service, and encourage the participation

of tribal authorities and state

commissions.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

4. The action contained herein has

been analyzed with respect to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)

and does not impose modified reporting

and/or recordkeeping requirements or

burdens on the public.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

5. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared this Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the

possible significant economic impact on

small entities by the policies and rules

proposed in this document. 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

FNPRM. The Commission will send a

copy of the FNPRM, including this

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration.

In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or

summaries thereof) will be published in

the Federal Register.

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

6. This document is being issued in

order to ensure that enhanced Lifeline

and Link Up support is targeted to the

most underserved segments of our

Nation. The Commission issues the

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

contained herein as a part of its

implementation of the Act’s mandate

that ‘‘[c]onsumers in all regions of the

Nation . . . have access to

telecommunications and information

services . . ..’’ The FNPRM seeks

comment on how to define geographic

areas that are adjacent to the

reservations or are otherwise a part of

the reservation’s community of interest,

in a manner that is consistent with our

goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and

Link Up support to the most

underserved segments of the Nation.

The FNPRM also seeks comment on

whether the targeting of enhanced

Lifeline and Link Up support to areas or

communities that are ‘‘near

reservations,’’ as that term is defined in

section 20.1(r) of the BIA regulations, is

an effective way to target support to the

most isolated, impoverished, and

underserved regions of the country. In

addition, the FNPRM seeks comment on

alternative ways of defining the

geographic areas that are near

reservations to ensure that enhanced

Lifeline and Link Up support is targeted

to qualifying low-income consumers

living in areas adjacent to, or near,

reservations that share many of the same

characteristics as the reservations. Our

objective is to fulfill section 254’s

mandate that ‘‘all regions of the Nation

. . . have access to

telecommunications.’’

2. Legal Basis

7. The legal basis for this FNPRM is

contained in sections 1–4, 201–205, 254,

303(r), and 403 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended by the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47

U.S.C. 1–4, 201–205, 254, 303(r), and

403.

3. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities To Which

Rules Will Apply

8. The RFA directs agencies to

provide a description of and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of

small entities that may be affected by

the proposed rules. The RFA generally

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as

having the same meaning as the terms

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58723

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

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’

has the same meaning as the term

‘‘small business concern’’ under the

Small Business Act. A small business

concern is one that: (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). A small

organization is generally ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.’’ Nationwide, as of

1992, there were approximately 275,801

small organizations. ‘‘Small

governmental jurisdiction’’ generally

means ‘‘governments of cities, counties,

towns, townships, villages, school

districts, or special districts, with a

population of less than 50,000.’’ As of

1992, there were approximately 85,006

such jurisdictions in the United States.

This number includes 38,978 counties,

cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96

percent, have populations of fewer than

50,000. The Census Bureau estimates

that this ratio is approximately accurate

for all governmental entities. Thus, of

the 85,006 governmental entities, we

estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are

small entities. The new rules proposed

in this FNPRM may affect all providers

of interstate telecommunications and

interstate telecommunications services.

We further describe and estimate the

number of small business concerns that

may be affected by the rules proposed

in this FNPRM.

9. The SBA has defined a small

business for Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) categories 4812

(Radiotelephone Communications) and

4813 (Telephone Communications,

Except Radiotelephone) to be small

entities when they have no more than

1,500 employees. We first discuss the

number of small telephone companies

falling within these SIC categories, then

attempt to refine further those estimates

to correspond with the categories of

telecommunications companies that are

commonly used under our rules.

10. The most reliable source of

information regarding the total numbers

of common carrier and related providers

nationwide, including the numbers of

commercial wireless entities, appears to

be data the Commission publishes

annually in its Trends in Telephone

Service report. According to data in the

most recent report, there are 4,144

interstate carriers. These carriers

include, inter alia, incumbent local

exchange carriers, competitive local

exchange carriers, competitive access

providers, interexchange carriers, other

wireline carriers and service providers

(including shared-tenant service

providers and private carriers), operator

service providers, pay telephone

operators, providers of telephone toll

service, wireless carriers and services

providers, and resellers.

11. We have included small

incumbent LECs in this present RFA

analysis. As noted, a ‘‘small business’’

under the RFA is one that, inter alia,

meets the pertinent small business size

standard (e.g., a telephone

communications business having 1,500

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not

dominant in its field of operation.’’ The

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that,

for RFA purposes, small incumbent

LECs are not dominant in their field of

operation because any such dominance

is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. We have

therefore included small incumbent

LECs in this RFA analysis, although we

emphasize that this RFA action has no

effect on Commission analyses and

determinations in other, non-RFA

contexts.

12. Total Number of Telephone

Companies Affected. The United States

Bureau of the Census (‘‘the 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. 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, PCS providers,

covered SMR providers, and resellers. It

seems certain that some of those 3,497

telephone service firms may not qualify

as small entities or small incumbent

LECs because they are not

‘‘independently owned and operated.’’

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 seems reasonable to

conclude, therefore, that fewer than

3,497 telephone service firms are small

entity telephone service firms or small

incumbent LECs that may be affected by

the rules proposed in this FNPRM.

13. Wireline Carriers and Service

Providers. SBA has developed a

definition of small entities for telephone

communications companies other than

radiotelephone companies. The Census

Bureau reports that there were 2,321

such telephone companies in operation

for at least one year at the end of 1992.

According to SBA’s definition, a small

business telephone company other than

a radiotelephone company is one

employing no more than 1,500 persons.

All but 26 of the 2,321 nonradiotelephone 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 non-radiotelephone 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 SBA’s

definition. Consequently, we estimate

that there are fewer than 2,295 small

entity telephone communications

companies other than radiotelephone

companies that may be affected by the

rules proposed in this FNPRM.

14. Local Exchange Carriers,

Interexchange Carriers, Competitive

Access Providers, Operator Service

Providers, and Resellers. Neither the

Commission nor SBA has developed a

definition particular to small local

exchange carriers (LECs), interexchange

carriers (IXCs), competitive access

providers (CAPs), operator service

providers (OSPs), or resellers. The

closest applicable definition for these

carrier-types under SBA rules is for

telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone (wireless)

companies. The most reliable source of

information regarding the number of

these carriers nationwide of which we

are aware appears to be the data that we

collect annually in connection with the

Telecommunications Relay Service

(TRS). According to our most recent

data, there are 1,348 incumbent LECs,

212 CAPs and competitive LECs, 171

IXCs, 24 OSPs, 388 toll resellers, and 54

local resellers. Although it seems certain

that some of these carriers are not

independently owned and operated, or

have more than 1,500 employees, we are

unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of these

carriers that would qualify as small

business concerns under SBA’s

definition. Consequently, we estimate

that there are fewer than 1,348

incumbent LECs, 212 CAPs and

competitive LECs, 171 IXCs, 24 OSPs,

388 toll resellers, and 54 local resellers

that may be affected by the rules

proposed in this FNPRM.

15. Wireless (Radiotelephone)

Carriers. SBA has developed a

definition of small entities for

radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

The Census Bureau reports that there

were 1,176 such companies in operation

for at least one year at the end of 1992.

According to SBA’s definition, a small

58724 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

business radiotelephone company is one

employing no more than 1,500 persons.

The Census Bureau also reported that

1,164 of those radiotelephone

companies had fewer than 1,000

employees. Thus, even if all of the

remaining 12 companies had more than

1,500 employees, there would still be

1,164 radiotelephone companies that

might qualify as small entities if they

are independently owned and operated.

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 radiotelephone

carriers and service providers that

would qualify as small business

concerns under SBA’s definition.

Consequently, we estimate that there are

fewer than 1,164 small entity

radiotelephone companies that may be

affected by the rules proposed in this

FNPRM.

16. Cellular, PCS, SMR and Other

Mobile Service Providers. In an effort to

further refine our calculation of the

number of radiotelephone companies

that may be affected by the rules

proposed herein, we consider the data

that we collect annually in connection

with the TRS for the subcategories

Wireless Telephony (which includes

Cellular, PCS, and SMR) and Other

Mobile Service Providers. Neither the

Commission nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small entities specifically

applicable to these broad subcategories,

so we will utilize the closest applicable

definition under SBA rules—which, for

both categories, is for telephone

companies other than radiotelephone

(wireless) companies. To the extent that

the Commission has adopted definitions

for small entities providing PCS and

SMR services, we discuss those

definitions. According to our most

recent TRS data, 808 companies

reported that they are engaged in the

provision of Wireless Telephony

services and 23 companies reported that

they are engaged in the provision of

Other Mobile Services. Although it

seems certain that some of these carriers

are not independently owned and

operated, or have more than 1,500

employees, we are unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the

number of Wireless Telephony

Providers and Other Mobile Service

Providers, except as described, that

would qualify as small business

concerns under SBA’s definition.

Consequently, we estimate that there are

fewer than 808 small entity Wireless

Telephony Providers and fewer than 23

small entity Other Mobile Service

Providers that might be affected by the

rules proposed in this FNPRM.

17. Broadband PCS Licensees. The

broadband PCS spectrum is divided into

six frequency blocks designated A

through F, and the Commission has held

auctions for each block. The

Commission defined ‘‘small entity’’ for

Blocks C and F as an entity that has

average gross revenues of less than $40

million in the three previous calendar

years. For Block F, an additional

classification for ‘‘very small business’’

was added, and is defined as an entity

that, together with its affiliates, has

average gross revenues of not more than

$15 million for the preceding three

calendar years. These regulations

defining ‘‘small entity’’ in the context of

broadband PCS auctions have been

approved by SBA. No small businesses

within the SBA-approved definition bid

successfully for licenses in Blocks A

and B. There were 90 winning bidders

that qualified as small entities in the

Block C auctions. A total of 93 small

and very small business bidders won

approximately 40 percent of the 1,479

licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.

However, licenses for Blocks C through

F have not been awarded fully, therefore

there are few, if any, small businesses

currently providing PCS services. Based

on this information, we estimate that the

number of small broadband PCS

licenses will include the 90 winning C

Block bidders and the 93 qualifying

bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a

total of 183 small PCS providers as

defined by SBA and the Commissioner’s

auction rules.

18. SMR Licensees. Pursuant to

§ 90.814(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules,

the Commission has defined ‘‘small

entity’’ in auctions for geographic area

800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses as

a firm that had average annual gross

revenues of less than $15 million in the

three previous calendar years. The

definition of a ‘‘small entity’’ in the

context of both 800 MHz and 900 MHz

SMR has been approved by the SBA.

Any rules proposed in this proceeding

may apply to SMR providers in the 800

MHz and 900 MHz bands that either

hold geographic area licenses or have

obtained extended implementation

authorizations. We do not know how

many firms provide 800 MHz or 900

MHz geographic area SMR service

pursuant to extended implementation

authorizations, nor how many of these

providers have annual revenues of less

than $15 million. We assume, for

purposes of this IRFA, that all of the

extended implementation

authorizations may be held by small

entities, that may be affected by the

decisions and rule changes adopted in

this proceeding.

19. The Commission recently held

auctions for geographic area licenses in

the 900 MHz SMR band. There were 60

winning bidders who qualified as small

entities in the 900 MHz auction. Based

on this information, we estimate that the

number of geographic area SMR

licensees that may be affected by the

decisions and rules in the order and

order on reconsideration includes these

60 small entities. No auctions have been

held for 800 MHz geographic area SMR

licenses. Therefore, no small entities

currently hold these licenses. A total of

525 licenses will be awarded for the

upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz

geographic area SMR auction. The

Commission, however, has not yet

determined how many licenses will be

awarded for the lower 230 channels in

the 800 MHz geographic area SMR

auction. There is no basis, moreover, on

which to estimate how many small

entities will win these licenses. Given

that nearly all radiotelephone

companies have fewer than 1,000

employees and that no reliable estimate

of the number of prospective 800 MHz

licensees can be made, we estimate, for

purposes of this IRFA, that all of the

licenses may be awarded to small

entities, some of which may be affected

by the rules proposed in this FNPRM.

20. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I

Licensees. The 220 MHz service has

both Phase I and Phase II licenses. There

are approximately 1,515 such nonnationwide licensees and four

nationwide licensees currently

authorized to operate in the 220 MHz

band. The Commission has not

developed a definition of small entities

specifically applicable to such

incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees.

To estimate the number of such

licensees that are small businesses, we

apply the definition under the SBA

rules applicable to Radiotelephone

Communications companies. According

to the Bureau of the Census, only 12

radiotelephone firms out of a total of

1,178 such firms which operated during

1992 had 1,000 or more employees.

Therefore, if this general ratio continues

to 1999 in the context of Phase I 220

MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly

all such licensees are small businesses

under the SBA’s definition.

21. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II

Licensees. The Phase II 220 MHz service

is a new service, and is subject to

spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz

Third Report and Order, 62 FR 16004

(April 3, 1997), we adopted criteria for

defining small businesses and very

small businesses for purposes of

determining their eligibility for special

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58725

provisions such as bidding credits and

installment payments. We have defined

a small business as an entity that,

together with its affiliates and

controlling principals, has average gross

revenues not exceeding $15 million for

the preceding three years. Additionally,

a very small business is defined as an

entity that, together with its affiliates

and controlling principals, has average

gross revenues that are not more than $3

million for the preceding three years.

An auction of Phase II licenses

commenced on September 15, 1998, and

closed on October 22, 1998. 908 licenses

were auctioned in 3 different-sized

geographic areas: three nationwide

licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area

Group Licenses, and 875 Economic Area

(EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses

auctioned, 693 were sold. Companies

claiming small business status won: One

of the Nationwide licenses, 67 percent

of the Regional licenses, and 54 percent

of the EA licenses. As of January 22,

1999, the Commission announced that it

was prepared to grant 654 of the Phase

II licenses won at auction. A reauction

of the remaining, unsold licenses was

completed on June 30, 1999, with 16

bidders winning 222 of the Phase II

licenses. As a result, we estimate that 16

or fewer of these final winning bidders

are small or very small businesses.

22. Narrowband PCS. The

Commission has auctioned nationwide

and regional licenses for narrowband

PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30

regional licensees for narrowband PCS.

The Commission does not have

sufficient information to determine

whether any of these licensees are small

businesses within the SBA-approved

definition for radiotelephone

companies. At present, there have been

no auctions held for the major trading

area (MTA) and basic trading area (BTA)

narrowband PCS licenses. The

Commission anticipates a total of 561

MTA licenses and 2,958 BTA licenses

will be awarded by auction. Such

auctions have not yet been scheduled,

however. Given that nearly all

radiotelephone companies have no more

than 1,500 employees and that no

reliable estimate of the number of

prospective MTA and BTA narrowband

licensees can be made, we assume, for

purposes of this IRFA, that all of the

licenses will be awarded to small

entities, as that term is defined by the

SBA.

23. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The

Commission has not adopted a

definition of small entity specific to the

Rural Radiotelephone Service. A

significant subset of the Rural

Radiotelephone Service is the Basic

Exchange Telephone Radio Systems

(BETRS). We will use the SBA’s

definition applicable to radiotelephone

companies, i.e., an entity employing no

more than 1,500 persons. There are

approximately 1,000 licensees in the

Rural Radiotelephone Service, and we

estimate that almost all of them qualify

as small entities under the SBA’s

definition.

24. Air-Ground Radiotelephone

Service. The Commission has not

adopted a definition of small entity

specific to the Air-Ground

Radiotelephone Service. Accordingly,

we will use the SBA’s definition

applicable to radiotelephone companies,

i.e., an entity employing no more than

1,500 persons. There are approximately

100 licensees in the Air-Ground

Radiotelephone Service, and we

estimate that almost all of them qualify

as small entities under the SBA

definition.

25. Fixed Microwave Services.

Microwave services include common

carrier, private-operational fixed, and

broadcast auxiliary radio services. At

present, there are approximately 22,015

common carrier fixed licensees and

61,670 private operational-fixed

licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio

licensees in the microwave services.

The Commission has not yet defined a

small business with respect to

microwave services. For purposes of

this IRFA, we will utilize the SBA’s

definition applicable to radiotelephone

companies—i.e., an entity with no more

than 1,500 persons. We estimate, for this

purpose, that all of the Fixed Microwave

licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary

licensees) would qualify as small

entities under the SBA definition for

radiotelephone companies.

26. Wireless Communications

Services. This service can be used for

fixed, mobile, radio location and digital

audio broadcasting satellite uses. The

Commission defined ‘‘small business’’

for the wireless communications

services (WCS) auction as an entity with

average gross revenues of $40 million

for each of the three preceding years,

and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an entity

with average gross revenues of $15

million for each of the three preceding

years. The Commission auctioned

geographic area licenses in the WCS

service. In the auction, there were seven

winning bidders that qualified as very

small business entities, and one that

qualified as a small business entity. We

conclude that the number of geographic

area WCS licensees that may be affected

by the rules proposed in this FNPRM

includes these eight entities.

27. Multipoint Distribution Systems

(MDS). The Commission has defined

‘‘small entity’’ for the auction of MDS as

an entity that, together with its affiliates,

has average gross annual revenues that

are not more than $40 million for the

preceding three calendar years. This

definition of a small entity in the

context of MDS auctions has been

approved by the SBA. The Commission

completed its MDS auction in March

1996 for authorizations in 493 basic

trading areas (BTAs). Of 67 winning

bidders, 61 qualified as small entities.

28. MDS is also heavily encumbered

with licensees of stations authorized

prior to the auction. The SBA has

developed a definition of small entities

for pay television services, which

includes all such companies generating

$11 million or less in annual receipts.

This definition includes multipoint

distribution systems, and thus applies to

MDS licensees and wireless cable

operators which did not participate in

the MDS auction. Information available

to us indicates that there are 832 of

these licensees and operators that do not

generate revenue in excess of $11

million annually. Therefore, for

purposes of this IRFA, we find there are

approximately 892 small MDS providers

as defined by the SBA and the

Commission’s auction rules, some

which may be affected by the rules

proposed in this FNPRM.

4. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

29. The measures under consideration

in this FNPRM may, if adopted, result

in additional reporting or other

compliance requirements. For example,

changes to the geographic area within

which enhanced Lifeline and Link Up

support is directed may, if adopted,

result in increased federal universal

service support obligations for

telecommunications carriers required to

contribute to federal universal service

support mechanisms. A modified

definition of ‘‘near reservation’’ also

may impact reporting requirements for

carriers eligible to receive enhanced

Lifeline and Link Up support. If, for

example, the definition of ‘‘near

reservation’’ is expanded to include a

larger geographic area, eligible carriers

may be required to submit data

regarding an increased number of

qualifying low-income consumers. Such

increased reporting requirements would

be offset by increased opportunities for

receipt of enhanced Lifeline and Link

Up support.

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

30. The RFA requires an agency to

describe any significant alternatives that

58726 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

it has considered in reaching its

proposed approach, which may include

the following four alternatives (among

others): (1) The establishment of

differing compliance and reporting

requirements or timetables that take into

account the resources available to small

entities; (2) the clarification,

consolidation, or simplification of

compliance or reporting requirements

under the rule for small entities; (3) the

use of performance, rather than design,

standards; and (4) an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for

small entities.

31. With respect to the possibility of

increased universal service contribution

requirements, the primary alternative to

the proposals contained in the FNPRM,

which would minimize the economic

impact on small entities, would be to

determine not to increase universal

service support obligations. We observe

that section 254(d) of the Act requires

that all telecommunications carriers

contribute to the federal universal

service support mechanisms on ‘‘an

equitable and nondiscriminatory basis.’’

As a result, the Commission may not

propose alternatives specifically

designed to minimize the economic

impact on small entities. We note,

however, that the Commission has

established a de minimis exception from

universal service contribution

obligations for carriers whose interstate

end-user telecommunications revenues

in a given year are less than $10,000.

This exception should lessen the burden

on certain telecommunications carriers

that meet the definition of small

entities.

32. With respect to the additional

reporting and compliance requirements

for carriers that are eligible to receive

enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support,

the Commission does not seek comment

on whether an exception for carriers

meeting the definition of small entities

is appropriate. In setting the standard

for what services carriers designated as

eligible telecommunications carriers

must provide, the Commission has

established a uniform, nationwide

standard for the services to which all

Americans should have access. The

Commission’s rules relating to the

receipt of enhanced Lifeline and Link

Up support apply equally to all eligible

telecommunications carriers providing

services to qualifying low-income

consumers. The FNPRM is consistent

with these standards. Individual

carriers, however, may obtain a waiver

of the Commission’s rules if good cause

is shown therefor.

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

33. None.

C. Comment Dates and Filing

Procedures

34. We invite comment on the issues

and questions set forth in the Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

contained herein. Pursuant to applicable

procedures set forth in § 1.415 and

§ 1.419 of the Commission’s rules,

interested parties may comment on or

before October 12, 2000, and reply

comment on or before October 27, 2000.

Comments may be filed using the

Commission’s Electronic Comment

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper

copies. See Electronic Filing of

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,

63 FR 24,121 (1998).

35. Comments filed through the ECFS

can be sent as an electronic file via the

Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of

an electronic submission must be filed.

If multiple docket or rulemaking

numbers appear in the caption of this

proceeding, however, commenters must

transmit one electronic copy of the

comments to each docket or rulemaking

number referenced in the caption. In

completing the transmittal screen,

commenters should include their full

name, Postal Service mailing address,

and the applicable docket or rulemaking

number. Parties may also submit

electronic comments by Internet e-mail.

To receive filing instructions for e-mail

comments, commenters should send an

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

include the following words in the body

of the message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail

address>.’’ A sample form and

directions will be sent in reply.

36. Parties who choose to file by

paper must file an original and four

copies of each filing. If more than one

docket or rulemaking number appears in

the caption of this proceeding,

commenters must submit two additional

copies for each additional docket or

rulemaking number. All filings must be

sent to the Commission’s Secretary,

Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications

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

Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties also

should send three paper copies of their

filing to Sheryl Todd, Accounting Policy

Division, Common Carrier Bureau,

Federal Communications Commission,

445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 5–B540,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

37. Parties who choose to file by

paper should also submit their

comments on diskette to Sheryl Todd,

Accounting Policy Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission, 445

Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 5–B540,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a

submission should be on a 3.5 inch

diskette formatted in an IBM-compatible

format using Microsoft Word 97 for

Windows or a compatible software. The

diskette should be accompanied by a

cover letter and should be submitted in

‘‘read-only’’ mode. The diskette should

be clearly labeled with the commenter’s

name, proceeding, including the lead

docket number in the proceeding (CC

Docket No. 96–45), type of pleading

(comment or reply comment), date of

submission, and the name of the

electronic file on the diskette. The label

should also include the following

phrase (‘‘Disk Copy Not an Original.’’)

Each diskette should contain only one

party’s pleadings, preferably in a single

electronic file. In addition, commenters

must send diskette copies to the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20037.

IV. Ordering Clauses

38. Pursuant to the authority

contained in sections 1–4, 201–205, 254,

303(r), and 403 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, and §§ 1.3 and

1.429(k) of the Commission’s rules, this

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

is adopted.

39. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, including the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–24636 Filed 9–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U