Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 58477

(r) Character rendition considerations.

In NTSC Closed Captioning, decoders

were required to insert leading and

trailing spaces on each caption row.

There were two reasons for this

requirement:

(1) To provide a buffer so that the first

and last characters of a caption row do

not fall outside the safe title area, and

(2) To provide a black border on each

side of a character so that the ‘‘white’’

leading pixels of the first character on

a row and the trailing ‘‘white’’ pixels of

the last character on a row do not bleed

into the underlying video.

(i) Since caption windows are

required to reside in the safe title area

of the DTV screen, reason 1 (above) is

not applicable to DTVCC captions.

(ii) The attributes available in the

SetPenAttributes command for character

rendition (e.g., character background

and edge attributes) provide unlimited

flexibility to the caption provider when

describing caption text in an ideal

decoder implementation. However,

manufacturers need not implement all

pen attributes. Thus it is recommended

that no matter what the level of

implementation, decoder manufacturers

should take into account the readability

of all caption text against a variety of all

video backgrounds, and should

implement some automatic character

delineation when the individual control

of character foreground, background and

edge is not supported.

(s) Service synchronization. Service

Input Buffers must be at least 128 bytes

in size. Caption providers must keep

this lower limit in mind when following

Delay commands with other commands

and window text. In other words, no

more than 128 bytes of DTVCC

commands and text should be

transmitted (encoded) before a pending

Delay command’s delay interval expires.

(t) Settings. Decoders must include an

option that permits a viewer to choose

a setting that will display captions as

intended by the caption provider (a

default). Decoders must also include an

option that allows a viewer’s chosen

settings to remain until the viewer

chooses to alter these settings, including

periods when the television is turned

off.

PART 79—CLOSED CAPTIONING OF

VIDEO PROGRAMMING

1. The authority citation for part 79

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 613.

2. Section 79.1 is amended by revising

paragraphs (a)(4) and (c) to read as

follows:

§ 79.1 Closed captionng of video

programming.

(a) * * *

(1) Closed captioning. The visual

display of the audio portion of video

programming pursuant to the technical

specifications set forth in part 15 of this

chapter.

* * * * *

(c) Obligation to pass through

captions of already captioned programs.

All video programming distributors

shall deliver all programming received

from the video programming owner or

other origination source containing

closed captioning to receiving television

households with the original closed

captioning data intact in a format that

can be recovered and displayed by

decoders meeting the standards of part

15 of this chapter unless such

programming is recaptioned or the

captions are reformatted by the

programming distributor.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–24649 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[PR Docket No. 94–54; FCC 00–251]

Interconnection and Resale

Obligations Pertaining to Commercial

Mobile Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission (the Commission)

previously required certain providers of

Commercial Mobile Radio Services

(CMRS) to provide ‘‘manual’’ roaming

service upon reasonable request to any

subscriber. In this document, the

Commission modifies the scope of the

‘‘manual’’ roaming rule to apply only to

CMRS providers that offer real-time

two-way switched voice or data service

that is interconnected with the public

switched network using an in-network

switching facility. Additionally, the

Commission revises the scope to extend

to cellular and broadband PCS

providers. Also, the Commission

extends the rule to cover data-only

services as well as voice services.

Finally, the Commission terminates its

consideration in this docket of issues

relating to ‘‘automatic’’ roaming and the

potential sunset of the ‘‘manual’’

roaming rule.

DATES: Effective November 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, contact Paul

Murray, Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau, at (202) 418–0688; additional

information concerning the information

collections contained in this document

contact Judy Boley at (202) 418–0214, or

via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Memorandum Opinion & Order (MO&O)

in PR Docket No. 93–144, adopted

August 2, 2000, and released August 4,

2000, is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center, 445

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington DC.

The complete text may be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

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

DC 20036 (202) 857–3800.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and

Order

I. Introduction

1. Roaming occurs when the

subscriber of one CMRS provider

utilizes the facilities of another CMRS

provider with which the subscriber has

no direct pre-existing service or

financial relationship to place an

outgoing call, to receive an incoming

call, or to continue an in-progress call.

Roaming service can be provided

through a variety of technical and

contractual arrangements.

2. In 1996, we determined in the

Second Report and Order and Third

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(‘‘Second Report and Order’’), 11 FCC

Rcd 9462 (1996), published 61 FR 44026

(Aug. 27, 1996), that the availability of

roaming on broadband wireless

networks was important to the

development of nationwide, ubiquitous,

and competitive wireless voice

telecommunications, and that market

forces alone might not be sufficient to

cause roaming to become widely

available during the period in which

systems to provide these services were

being built. Accordingly, we ordered

that our then-existing ‘‘manual’’

roaming rule requiring cellular carriers

to serve individual roamers, 47 CFR

22.901, be extended to include other

CMRS providers, both broadband PCS

and ‘‘covered’’ SMR, that offer

comparable competitive telephony

services so long as the roamer’s handset

is technically capable of accessing their

services.

II. Summary of the Memorandum

Opinion and Order on Reconsideration

3. In this order we consider three

petitions for reconsideration and/or

clarification of the ‘‘manual’’ roaming

58478 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

rule, filed by the American Mobile

Telecommunications Association,

Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel),

and Small Business in

Telecommunications, Inc. These focus

on the extent to which SMR service

providers should be covered by the

‘‘manual’’ roaming rule. In addition, we

consider Nextel’s petition for

declaratory ruling in which clarification

of the ‘‘manual’’ roaming rule was

sought.

A. Modifications to the Scope of the

Manual Roaming Rule

4. In our Second Report and Order,

we limited the scope of the ‘‘manual’’

roaming rule in the SMR context to

‘‘covered’’ SMR providers, a definition

which we intended to include only

those providers who compete directly

with cellular and broadband PCS. Under

the existing rule, ‘‘covered’’ SMR

providers include certain SMR licensees

within two classes. The first class

consists of 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR

licensees that hold geographic area

licenses. The second covers incumbent

wide area SMR licensees, defined as

licensees who have obtained extended

implementation authorizations in the

800 MHz or 900 MHz SMR service,

either by waiver or under Section

90.629 of our rules. Within these

classes, ‘‘covered’’ SMR providers

‘‘includes only licensees that offer realtime, two-way switched voice service

that is interconnected with the public

switched network, either on a standalone basis or packaged with other

telecommunications services.’’ We

stated that local SMR licensees offering

mainly dispatch services to specialized

customers in a non-cellular system

configuration, as well as licensees

offering only data, one-way, or stored

voice services on an interconnected

basis, are not covered by the roaming

rule because these providers do not

compete substantially with cellular and

broadband PCS providers. We found

that the costs of applying the roaming

rule to their operations would outweigh

the benefits.

5. Modification of Definition of

‘‘Covered’’ Providers. On

reconsideration, we now conclude that

our objective with respect to SMR is

best achieved by limiting the ‘‘manual’’

roaming rule to reach those CMRS

providers that offer real-time, two-way

switched voice and data service that is

interconnected with the public switched

telephone network utilizing an ‘‘innetwork’’ switching facility. In addition,

we are extending the rule to cover not

only voice, but data-only service as

well. Accordingly, we revise the

applicable rule, 47 CFR 20.12 (‘‘Resale

and Roaming’’).

6. We conclude that an important

indicator of a provider’s ability to

compete with traditional cellular and

broadband PCS providers is whether the

provider’s system has ‘‘in-network’’

switching capability. In-network

switching facilities accommodate the

reuse of frequencies in different

portions of the same service area, thus

enabling an SMR provider to offer

interconnected service to a larger group

of customers and to compete directly

with cellular and broadband PCS in the

mass consumer market. We therefore

adopt in-network switching capability

as a criterion for coverage under the

‘‘manual’’ roaming rule.

7. Also, as we have done in the

contexts of resale, number portability,

and E911, we extend our modified

definition of ‘‘covered’’ SMR to

providers of similar service over cellular

and broadband PCS spectrum. This

reflects the fact that SMR services

excluded from coverage under our

definition, such as traditional dispatch

services, can be provided using cellular

or broadband PCS spectrum as well as

SMR spectrum.

8. Application on a System-by-System

Basis. Finally, we clarify that if a

licensee provides ‘‘covered’’ service on

systems in certain areas of the country,

and provides only traditional dispatch

services on systems in other areas of the

country, only the ‘‘covered’’ systems

would be subject to the ‘‘manual’’

roaming rule. Thus, the rule will not

apply in the geographic area(s) where a

carrier provides only traditional

dispatch service, provided that the

carrier clearly identifies the area(s) in

question.

B. Manual Roaming Requirement

Pertaining to SMR

9. One petitioner seeks clarification of

the rule with respect to the particular

SMR service it provides, contending

that application of the ‘‘manual’’

roaming rule would require it to modify

its system and otherwise cause it to

incur significant costs in a manner that

would violate the Commission’s intent

with regard to the obligations imposed

by the rule. Specifically, it claims that

compliance with the rule is technically

infeasible because SMR systems, unlike

cellular systems, do not share control

channels or interoperability standards.

10. In our Second Report and Order,

we stated that licensees are required to

provide ‘‘manual’’ roaming to

subscribers of any cellular, broadband

PCS, or ‘‘covered’’ SMR services so long

as that subscriber is using a handset that

is technically capable of accessing the

licensee’s system. We also, however,

stated that our ‘‘manual’’ roaming rule

did not require licensees to modify their

systems in order to provide ‘‘manual’’

roaming service to end users. We

confirm that the ‘‘manual’’ roaming rule

applies to SMR carriers to the extent

they fall within the modified definition

of ‘‘covered’’ CMRS providers. Beyond

that, we decline here to reach the factual

determination of a particular provider is

required by our rule to provide

‘‘manual’’ roaming to other SMR

companies’’ subscribers. We believe that

this issue, which requires a specific

factual determination, would more

appropriately be resolved in a petition

for declaratory ruling directed

specifically toward this issue or in the

context of a complaint filed pursuant to

Section 208.

III. Third Report and Order

11. In issuing the Second Report and

Order in 1996, we recognized that the

CMRS marketplace was rapidly

expanding and technologies were

dramatically evolving. We concluded

that the record was inconclusive

regarding the need for an ‘‘automatic’’

roaming requirement, and that

promulgation of an ‘‘automatic’’

roaming rule would be premature. In

1997, the Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau sought additional comment on a

potential ‘‘automatic’’ roaming

requirement in light of intervening

market and technological developments.

Unlike ‘‘manual’’ roaming, ‘‘automatic’’

roaming enables a roaming subscriber to

originate or terminate a call without

taking action other than turning on his

or her telephone. Provision of

‘‘automatic’’ roaming requires a

contractual arrangement between the

home and roamed-on systems.

12. Given these substantial

developments over the last few years,

we believe that an informed decision by

the Commission regarding what sort of

roaming requirements are appropriate

today and for the foreseeable future

requires an up-to-date record reflecting

current conditions. We plan in the near

future to issue a new, separately

docketed NPRM. We believe such a new

NPRM will enable us better to address

the relevant issues relating to

‘‘automatic’’ and ‘‘manual’’ roaming in

light of current technological and

market conditions.

IV. Procedural Matters

Supplemental Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis

13. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604 (RFA), a

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 58479

(FRFA) was incorporated into Second

Report and Order in this proceeding.

The Commission received no direct

comments or petitions for

reconsideration of the Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (or the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis)

contained therein. The Commission’s

Supplemental Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental

FRFA) in this Third Report and Order

and Memorandum Opinion and Order

on Reconsideration (Memorandum

Opinion and Order on Reconsideration)

reflects revised or additional

information to that contained in the

FRFA prepared in 1996. This

Supplemental FRFA conforms to the

RFA, as amended by the Contract with

America Advancement Act of 1996.

I. Need for and Purpose of this Action

14. In this Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration, the

Commission generally affirms its

decision in the Second Report and

Order to extend the ‘‘manual’’ roaming

rule requiring cellular carriers to serve

individual roamers to include other

Commercial Mobile Radio Service

(CMRS) providers, both broadband

Personal Communications Service (PCS)

and ‘‘covered’’ Specialized Mobile

Radio (SMR), that offer competitive

telephony services so long as the

roamer’s handset is technically capable

of accessing their services.

II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised

by the Public in Response to the Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

15. In the Second Report and Order,

the Commission in 1996 had limited the

scope of the ‘‘manual’’ roaming rule in

the SMR context to ‘‘covered’’ SMR

providers. This included two classes of

‘‘covered’’ providers: first, there were

geographic area licensees in the

Cellular, Broadband PCS, and the 800

and 900 MHz SMR services; and,

second, incumbent wide area licensees

who obtained extended implementation

authorizations in the 800 MHz or 900

MHz SMR services, either by waiver or

by Section 90.629 of the Commission’s

rules. Within these classes, ‘‘covered’’

SMR providers was limited to only

those licensees who offered real-time,

two-way switched voice service that war

interconnected with the public switched

network, either on a stand-alone basis or

packaged with other telecommunication

services. In that order, we stated that

local SMR licensees offering mainly

dispatch services to specialized

customers in a non-cellular system

configuration, as well as licensees

offering only data, one-way, or stored

voice services on an interconnected

basis, were not covered by the roaming

rule because they did not compete

substantially with cellular and

broadband PCS providers.

16. In this Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration, the

Commission concludes that

modification of the scope of the

‘‘manual’’ roaming rule best serves the

public interest. The amended Section

20.12(a), promulgated in this order,

changes the rule so that the set of

‘‘covered’’ providers clearly excludes

providers who do not directly compete

in the CMRS mass consumer two-way

voice market. Consequently, the order

modifies the scope of the manual

roaming rule to apply only to CMRS

providers that offer real-time two-way

switched voice or data service that is

interconnected with the public switched

network using an in-network switching

facility. Additionally, this revised

definition of ‘‘covered providers’’

extends to cellular and broadband PCS

providers as well. Finally, the

Commission extends the rule to cover

not only voice, but also data-only

service as well.

17. No petitions for reconsideration or

comments were filed in direct response

to the FRFA or to the related IRFA. In

petitions for reconsideration or

clarification, however, and in

responsive pleadings, as well, some

issues were raised that might affect

small entities. Specifically, some

commenters argued that the definition

of ‘‘covered’’ SMR should be limited to

systems that have an ‘‘in-network’’

switching facility or that serve at lease

a minimum number of mobile unit, e.g.,

at least 100,000 mobile units that

provide real-time, two-way

interconnected voice services or that

serve at least 20,000 or more subscribers

nationwide. Another commenter argued

that any definitional modification to the

term ‘‘covered’’ SMR should exclude

data-only SMR services.

III. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities Affected by

This Memorandum Opinion and Order

on Reconsideration

18. 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

our rules. The RFA generally defines the

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same

meaning as the term ‘‘small business

concern’’ under the Small Business Act.

A small business concern is one which:

(1) Is independently owned and

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field

of operation; and (3) satisfies any

additional criteria established by the

Small Business Administration (SBA). A

small organization is generally ‘‘any notfor-profit 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.

19. The rule changes in this

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration could affect all small

entities who are cellular, broadband

PCS, and 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR

licensees. The licensees that are covered

here are probably small businesses and

probably not small governmental

entities or small non-profit

organizations. Additionally, the

‘‘manual’’ roaming rule, as modified,

will apply to such licensees only if they

offer real-time, two-way switched voice

or data service that is interconnected

with the public switched network and

that utilizes an in-network switching

facility that enables the provider to

reuse frequencies and accomplish

seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.

20. The Commission estimates the

following number of small entities may

be affected by the proposed rule

changes. Cellular Licensees. Neither the

Commission nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small entities applicable

to cellular licensees. Therefore, the

applicable definition of a small entity is

the definition under the SBA rules

applicable to radiotelephone (wireless)

companies. This provides that a small

entity is a radiotelephone company

employing no more than 1,500 persons.

According to the Bureau of the Census,

only twelve radiotelephone firms from a

total of 1,178 such firms which operated

during 1992 had 1,000 or more

employees. Therefore, even if all twelve

of these firms were cellular telephone

companies, nearly all cellular carriers

were small businesses under the SBA’s

definition. In addition, we note that

there are 1,758 cellular licenses;

58480 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

however, a cellular licensee may own

several licenses. In addition, according

to the most recent Trends in Telephone

Service data, 808 carriers reported that

they were engaged in the provision of

either cellular service, Personal

Communications Service (PCS), or

Specialized Mobile Radio Telephone

(SMR) service, which are placed

together in the data. We do not have

data specifying the number of these

carriers that are not independently

owned and operated or have more than

1,500 employees, and thus are unable at

this time to estimate with greater

precision the number of cellular service

carriers that would qualify as small

business concerns under the SBA’s

definition. Consequently, we estimate

that there are fewer than 732 small

cellular service carriers that may be

affected by the revised regulations

adopted in this Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Reconsideration.

21. The rules adopted in this

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration will apply to cellular

licensees only if they offer real-time,

two-way switched voice or data service

that is interconnected with the public

switched network and that utilizes an

in-network switching facility that

enables the provider to reuse

frequencies and accomplish seamless

hand-offs of subscriber calls. Although

the Commission does not have

definitive information, we estimate that

most or all small business cellular

licensees offer services meeting this

description.

22. 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 the 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. Based on this information, we

conclude that the number of small

broadband PCS licensees 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 entity

PCS providers as defined by the SBA

and the Commission’s auction rules.

23. Pursuant to modifications made in

this Memorandum Opinion and Order

on Reconsideration, the ‘‘manual’’

roaming rule will apply to broadband

PCS licensees only if they offer realtime, two-way switched voice or data

service that is interconnected with the

public switched network and that

utilizes an in-network switching facility

that enables the provider to reuse

frequencies and accomplish seamless

hand-offs of subscriber calls. Although

the Commission does not have

definitive information, we estimate that

most or all small business broadband

PCS licensees offer services meeting this

description.

24. Estimates for SMR Licensees.

Pursuant to 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1), the

Commission has defined ‘‘small

business’’ for purposes of auctioning

900 MHz SMR licenses, 800 MHz SMR

licenses for the upper 200 channels, and

800 MHz SMR licenses for the lower

230 channels as a firm that has had

average annual gross revenues of $15

million or less in the three preceding

calendar years. This small business size

standard for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz

auctions has been approved by the SBA.

Any rules adopted in this Memorandum

Opinion and Order on Reconsideration

will apply to SMR licensees only if they

offer real-time, two-way switched voice

or data service that is interconnected

with the public switched network and

that utilizes an in-network switching

facility that enables the provider to

reuse frequencies and accomplish

seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.

Although the Commission does not have

definitive information, we estimate that

very few small business, incumbent siteby-site SMR licensees offer services

meeting this description. Geographic

licensees are considered more likely to

offer such services. In all cases, we

provide estimates that are conservative

so as to not underestimate the impact on

small entities.

25. Sixty winning bidders for

geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz

SMR band qualified as small businesses

under the $15 million size standard. We

do not know which of these licensees

will offer real-time, two-way switched

voice or data service that is

interconnected with the public switched

network and that utilizes an in-network

switching facility that enables the

provider to reuse frequencies and

accomplish seamless hand-offs of

subscriber calls. We conservatively

estimate that the number of small

business 900 MHz SMR geographic area

licensees that could be affected by rule

modifications is at least 60.

26. The auction of the 525 800 MHz

SMR geographic area licenses for the

upper 200 channels began on October

28, 1997, and was completed on

December 8, 1997. Ten (10) winning

bidders for geographic area licenses for

the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz

SMR band qualified as small businesses

under the $15 million size standard. We

do not know which of these licensees

will offer real-time, two-way switched

voice or data service that is

interconnected with the public switched

network and that utilizes an in-network

switching facility that enables the

provider to reuse frequencies and

accomplish seamless hand-offs of

subscriber calls. Therefore, we

conservatively estimate that the number

of small business 800 MHz SMR

geographic area licensees for the upper

200 channels that could be affected by

rule modifications is at approximately

ten.

27. The Commission anticipates that a

total of 3,853 EA licenses will be

auctioned in the lower 230 channels of

the 800 MHz SMR service. This figured

is derived by multiplying the total

number of Economic Areas (EAs) (175)

by the number of channel blocks (22) in

the lower 230 channels. Three

additional upper band channels will be

licensed as well. No party submitting or

commenting on the petitions for

reconsideration giving rise to our

Reconsideration of October 8, 1999,

commented on the potential number of

small entities that might participate in

the auction of the lower 230 channels

and no reasonable estimate can be

made. Therefore, we conclude that the

number of 800 MHz SMR geographic

area licensees for the lower 230

channels that may ultimately be affected

by this rule modification could be as

many as 3,853.

28. With respect to licensees

operating under extended

implementation authorizations, by

November 1997 thirty-three licensees

with extended implementation

authority in the 800 MHz SMR Service

were granted two years to complete the

buildout of their systems. At this time,

our records indicate that twenty-seven

licensees with extended implementation

authority still exist, but there may be as

few as twenty-two remaining as

independent entities. The Commission

will soon receive filings that will clarify

the situation. Until then, we assume that

there are twenty-seven remaining

licensees in this category and that they

all qualify as small businesses.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 58481

However, we do not know how many of

these licensees offer real-time, two-way

switched voice or data service that is

interconnected with the public switched

network and that utilizes an in-network

switching facility that enables the

provider to reuse frequencies and

accomplish seamless hand-offs of

subscriber calls. Therefore, estimating

conservatively, we conclude that the

number of small business SMR licensees

operating in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz

bands under extended implementation

authorizations that could be affected by

a rule modification is up to 27 entities.

29. The Commission does not have an

accurate estimate of the number of

incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees,

and a reliable figure will not be

available until the SMR site-by-site

licensees migrate to the Universal

Licensing System. Making this estimate

is complicated by the number of recent

transactions that have occurred in the

800 MHz SMR service. However, our

task is also greatly simplified for

purposes of this regulatory flexibility

analysis because we are looking for a

very specific type of SMR licensee. That

is, the licensee must: first, qualify as a

small business (i.e., average annual

gross revenues of $15 million or less in

the three preceding calendar years);

second, offer real-time, two-way

switched voice or data service that is

interconnected with the public switched

network; and third, use an in-network

switching facility that enables the

provider to reuse frequencies and

accomplish seamless hand-offs of

subscriber calls. These criteria greatly

restrict the number of SMR providers

who could be affected by this new rule.

Although there may be SMR carriers

who provide such services it is highly

unlikely that they will be small entities

or small businesses given the nature of

the SMR providers and the development

of that industry. Consequently, even

though there may be no licensees that

satisfy these criteria, we err on the sake

of caution and conclude that 25 small

entities may fall into this category.

IV. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

30. We anticipate that the rules

adopted in this Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Reconsideration will

impose no reporting or recordkeeping

requirements. The only compliance

costs likely to be incurred, as a result,

are administrative costs to ensure that

an entity’s practices are in compliance

with the rule. The only compliance

requirement of the new rules is that

licensees subject to a manual roaming

requirement (i.e., cellular licensees,

broadband PCS licensees, and

geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz

SMR licensees that offer real-time, twoway, interconnected switched voice and

data service) would have to provide

manual roaming service upon request to

subscribers of covered services in good

standing who are using technically

compatible equipment.

V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

31. The Commission adopted the

manual roaming rule, and generally

affirms the rule in this Memorandum

Opinion and Order on Reconsideration,

in order, inter alia, to protect smaller

and new CMRS providers of these

services from likely competitive

disadvantage. The Commission has

reduced the potential impact of the new

rules on small entities by continuing to

exclude from its requirements those

entities that have, traditionally,

constituted the smallest of the SMR

licensees, i.e., those licensees that do

not provide real-time two-way voice or

data services on an interconnected basis

using in-network switching systems.

The Commission has adopted an

alternative definition of covered SMR

that includes only those systems that

have an in-network switching facility.

This exception to coverage addresses

the concerns of SMR providers that

primarily offer traditional dispatch

services but whose offer of limited

interconnection capability might

otherwise subject them to the manual

roaming requirement. Such a result

would have been inconsistent with the

Commission’s determination that only

SMR providers that compete directly

with cellular and broadband PCS should

be subject to roaming requirements,

because an important indicator of a

provider’s ability to compete with

traditional cellular and broadband PCS

providers is whether the provider’s

system has ‘‘in-network’’ switching

capability.

32. By electing to adopt the innetwork switching criterion, the

Commission has rejected a definition of

SMR covered services that would

exempt SMR providers based on their

particular number of mobile units or on

capacity. The number of subscribers to

an SMR system is not a reliable

indicator of the system’s capacity. Nor

is it a reliable indicator of a system’s

ability to compete with cellular and

broadband PCS providers. Thus,

defining the term covered SMR in terms

of its number of subscribers or its

capacity could exempt from any manual

roaming requirement those services that

compete in markets where competitive

conditions do not yet sufficiently ensure

those customers seeking to roam access

to roaming capabilities. As we stated in

the Second Report and Order, and

affirmed in this order, the manual

roaming rule does not require any

carrier to expand its capacity or to

change its system in order to

accommodate the needs of roamers.

Federal Rules Which Overlap,

Duplicate, or Conflict With These

Proposed Rules

33. None.

Report to Congress

34. The Commission will send a copy

of this Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration, including a

copy of this Supplemental Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a

report to be sent to Congress pursuant

to the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

VI. Ordering Clauses

35. Accordingly, the authority of the

rule amendments and clarifications

appearing in the rule changes and

discussed herein Are Adopted and Shall

Be Effective November 28, 2000.

36. The Petition for Reconsideration

filed by the American Mobile

Telecommunications Association

(AMTA) in Docket No. 94–54 Is Granted

to the extent indicated herein and

otherwise Is Denied, and that AMTA’s

Petition for Declaratory Ruling in CC

Docket No. 94–54 Is Dismissed As Moot.

37. The Petition for Reconsideration

and Clarification filed by the Nextel

Communications in CC Docket No. 94–

54 Is Granted to the extent such Petition

seeks clarification and as indicated

herein and otherwise is denied.

38. The Petition for Reconsideration

or Clarification filed by Small Business

in Telecommunications in CC Docket

No. 94–54 Is Granted to the extent

indicated herein and otherwise Is

Granted.

39. The Office of Public Affairs,

Reference Operations Division, shall

send a copy of this Order on

Reconsideration, including the

Supplemental Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth

in the preamble, Part 20 of Chapter 1 of

Title 47 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

58482 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

PART 20—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 20

continues to read as follows:

47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 251–254, 303, and 332

unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 20.12 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (c) to

read as follows:

§ 20.12 Resale and roaming.

(a) Scope of section. This section is

applicable to providers of Broadband

Personal Communications Services (part

24, subpart E of this chapter), Cellular

Radio Telephone Service (part 22,

subpart H of this chapter), and

Specialized Mobile Radio Services in

the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands

(included in part 90, subpart S of this

chapter) if such providers offer realtime, two-way switched voice or data

service that is interconnected with the

public switched network and utilizes an

in-network switching facility that

enables the provider to reuse

frequencies and accomplish seamless

hand-offs of subscriber calls. The scope

of paragraph (b) of this section,

concerning the resale rule, is further

limited so as to exclude from the

requirements of that paragraph those

Broadband Personal Communications

Services C, D, E, and F block licensees

that do not own and control and are not

owned and controlled by firms also

holding cellular, A, or B block licenses.

(b) Resale. The resale rule is

applicable as follows:

(1) Each carrier subject to paragraph

(b) of this section shall not restrict the

resale of its services, unless the carrier

demonstrates that the restriction is

reasonable.

* * * * *

(c) Roaming. Each carrier subject to

this section must provide mobile radio

service upon request to all subscribers

in good standing to the services of any

carrier subject to this section, including

roamers, while such subscribers are

located within any portion of the

licensee’s licensed service area where

facilities have been constructed and

service to subscribers has commenced,

if such subscribers are using mobile

equipment that is technically

compatible with the licensee’s base

stations.

[FR Doc. 00–24964 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATION

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA No. 00–1208, MM Docket No. 97–116;

RM 9050 and RM 9123]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Everglades City, LaBelle, Key West,

and Estero, FL; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission published in the Federal

Register of June 16, 2000, a document

concerning Radio Broadcasting Services

in Everglades City, LaBelle, Key West,

and Estero, FL. This document contains

a correction to that rule.

DATES: Effective July 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Orlando Ardon, Office of Managing

Director, 202–418–0310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document corrects FR Doc. 00–15261,

published on June 16, 2000, (65 FR

37709).

On page 37709, in the third column,

in § 73.202(b), amendatory instruction

No. 2 is corrected to read as follows:

PART 73—[CORRECTED]

§ 73.202 [Corrected]

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

Allotments under Florida, is amended

by removing LaBelle, Channel 223A and

adding Estero, Channel 223C3 and by

removing Channel 223C1 and adding

Channel 224C1 at Key West.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–25173 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 240

FRA Docket No. RSOR–9, Notice 13

[RIN 2130–AA74]

Qualification and Certification of

Locomotive Engineers; Corrections

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; corrections.

SUMMARY: FRA published in the Federal

Register of November 8, 1999, (64 FR

60966), a document making

miscellaneous amendments to its

requirements for the qualification and

certification of locomotive engineers (49

CFR part 240). Inadvertently, mistakes

were made in four different items in that

publication.

First, in § 240.7, a revised definition

of locomotive is missing a parenthesis.

Second, in § 240.7, an added

definition of service has one misplaced

quotation mark.

Third, a new § 240.309(e)(6) was

published without describing the

amendment as a revision of the existing

paragraph (e)(6). Without a correction,

the section would contain two different

paragraphs numbered (e)(6). This

document removes the older paragraph

(e)(6).

Fourth, two revisions were made to

the penalty schedule regarding

§ 240.123 without describing the

amendments. Without a correction, the

penalty schedule would not be

amended; instead, the revision would be

published separately after the penalty

schedule.

DATES: Effective on September 29, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan H. Nagler, Trial Attorney, Office of

Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., RCC–11, Mail Stop 10,

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–

493–6049).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA

published a document in the Federal

Register of November 8, 1999, (64 FR

60966) amending § 240.7. A revised

definition of locomotive was published.

However, the revision was missing a

parenthesis. A second close parenthesis

should have been added prior to the

colon.

FRA published a document in the

Federal Register of November 8, 1999,

(64 FR 60966) amending § 240.7. A

definition of service was added.

However, the new definition has one

misplaced quotation mark. The last

sentence should only have quotation

marks around the word ‘‘filing’’ instead

of quotation marks around the phrase

‘‘filing in this section.’’

FRA published a document in the

Federal Register of November 8, 1999,

(64 FR 60966) amending § 240.309. This

section was amended by revising

paragraphs (e), (e)(3), (e)(5), (e)(7), and

(e)(8), removing paragraph (e)(10) and

correcting a clerical error, which had

created a second paragraph (e), by

redesignating this second paragraph (e)

as paragraph (h). A paragraph numbered

(e)(6) was published without an

explanation of how to treat it in the

amendatory language. Although this

mistake occurred, the preamble in that