Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34603

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 67

[USCG–2001–8825]

RIN 2115–AG08

Vessel Documentation: LeaseFinancing for Vessels Engaged in the

Coastwise Trade

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: In response to public

requests, the Coast Guard is extending

the comment period on its notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on Vessel

Documentation: Lease-Financing for

Vessels Engaged in the Coastwise Trade.

Extending the comment period gives the

public more time to submit comments

and recommendations on the issues

raised in our NPRM. These proposed

rules address statutory amendments

eliminating certain barriers to seeking

foreign financing by lease for U.S.-flag

vessels. These proposals would clarify

the information needed to determine the

eligibility of a vessel financed in this

manner for a coastwise endorsement.

DATES: Comments on the NPRM must

reach the Coast Guard on or before

September 4, 2001.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your

comments and related material are not

entered more than once in the docket,

please submit them by only one of the

following means:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility (USCG–2001–8825), U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

(2) By delivery to room PL–401 on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

(3) By fax to the Docket Management

Facility at 202–493–2251.

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the Docket Management System

at http://dms.dot.gov.

You must also mail comments on

collection of information to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,

ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for the

rulemaking. Comments will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room PL–401,

located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif

Building at the same address between

10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. You

may electronically access the public

docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on viewing, or submitting

material to, the docket, call Dorothy

Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of

Transportation, telephone 202–366–

9329. For information on the NPRM

provisions contact Patricia Williams,

Deputy Director, National Vessel

Documentation Center (NVDC), Coast

Guard, telephone 304–271–2506.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages you to

submit written data, views, or

arguments. If you submit comments,

you should include your name and

address, identify the NPRM [USCG–

2001–8825; published in the Federal

Register on May 2, 2001 (66 FR 21902)]

and the specific section or question in

the document to which your comments

apply, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit one copy of all

comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing to the DOT Docket

Management Facility at the address

under ADDRESSES. If you want us to

acknowledge receiving your comments,

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed

postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change the proposed

rules in view of the comments.

Dated: June 26, 2001.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 01–16554 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 36 and 54

[CC Docket Nos. 96–45 and 00–256, FCC

01–157]

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service; Multi-Association Group

(MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate

Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent

Local Exchange Carriers and

Interexchange Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Further notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission declines, at this time, to

adopt the Rural Task Force’s proposal to

freeze per-line support in rural carrier

study areas in which a competitive

eligible telecommunications carrier is

providing service; however, the

Commission recognizes that excessive

fund growth may occur during this fiveyear plan. To develop the record on this

issue more fully, the Commission

invites interested parties to propose

possible alternative measures that may

be appropriate to address this issue. The

Commission also invites commenters to

address the likelihood that such

measures may be necessary to prevent

excessive fund growth during the fiveyear period.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

July 30, 2001. Reply comments are due

on or before August 28, 2001. Written

comments by the public on the

proposed information collections

discussed in this Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking are due on or

before July 30, 2001. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed information collections on or

before August 28, 2001.

ADDRESSES: 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, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the Secretary, a

copy of any comments on the

information collection(s) contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or

via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to

Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer,

10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503, or via the

Internet to

Edward.Springer@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Genaro Fullano, Paul Garnett, or Greg

Guice, 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

34604 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96–45

released on May 23, 2001. 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,

SW., Washington, DC 20554. This

FNPRM contains proposed information

collection(s) subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has

been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review under the PRA. OMB, the

general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed information collections

contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The FNPRM contains a proposed

information collection. The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

invites the general public and OMB to

comment on the information

collection(s) contained in this FNPRM,

as required by the PRA, Public Law

104–13. Public and agency comments

on the proposed information collections

discussed in this FNPRM are due on or

before July 30, 2001. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed information collections on or

before August 28, 2001.

Comments should address: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

OMB Control Number: None.

Title: Proposed Alternatives for the

Rural Task Force’s Proposal to Freeze

High Cost Loop Support Upon

Competitive Entry in Rural Carrier

Study Areas (FNPRM).

Form No.: None.

Type of Review: Proposed New

Collections.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Title No. of

respondents

Est. time per

response

(hrs)

Total annual

burden

Reporting of Working Loops at Cost-Zone Level ........................................................................ 9 20 720

Total Annual Burden: 720.

Cost to Respondents: $0.

Needs and Uses: In addition to

information already required by

§ 54.307 of the Commission’s rules,

competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers serving

loops in the service area of a rural

incumbent local exchange carrier, as

that term is defined by § 54.5 of the

Commission’s rules, would be required

to separately report the number of

captured and new loops in the service

area disaggregated by cost zone if

disaggregation zones have been

established within the service area

pursuant to § 54.315 of the

Commission’s rules. The frequency of

reporting also may be impacted by

conclusions reached in this proceeding.

For purposes of this Paperwork

Reduction Act analysis, we assume that

competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers would

continue to be required to submit such

data on a quarterly basis. Such reporting

would be a modification to the current

reporting requirement. The goal of this

proposal is to ensure that per-line highcost. The Commission also intends to

consider alternatives that do not involve

additional reporting requirements.

Synopsis of FNPRM

I. Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

A. Background

1. As discussed in greater detail in the

companion Order, 66 FR 30080, June 5,

2001, we decline at this time to adopt

the Rural Task Force’s proposal to freeze

high-cost loop support on a per-line

basis in rural carrier study areas where

a competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier initiates

service. The purpose of the proposal

was to prevent excessive growth in the

universal service fund as a result of the

entrance of competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers in rural

carrier study areas over the life of the

five-year plan we adopt here. As

discussed in the companion Order,

support provided to competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers is not

subject to the overall cap on the highcost loop fund. During the five-year

period, excessive growth in the fund is

thus possible if incumbent carriers lose

many lines to competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers, or if

competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers add a

significant number of lines. The first

scenario raises particular fund growth

concerns because as an incumbent

‘‘loses’’ lines to a competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier, the

incumbent must recover its fixed costs

from fewer lines, thus increasing its perline costs. With higher per-line costs,

the incumbent would receive greater

per-line support, which would also be

available to the competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier for each of

the lines that it serves. Thus, a

substantial loss of an incumbent’s lines

to a competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier could result

in excessive fund growth.

2. We base our decision not to adopt

the Rural Task Force’s proposal at this

time on several concerns. First, the

proposal may be of limited benefit in

serving its intended purpose and may,

in some instances, contribute to fund

growth by freezing support at higher

levels than would be warranted in the

future. Second, the likelihood of a

competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier capturing a

substantial percentage of lines from the

incumbent during the five-year period is

speculative. Third, the indexed cap on

the high-cost loop fund will operate as

a check on excessive fund growth to a

certain extent. Fourth, we are concerned

that the proposal may have the

unintended consequence of

discouraging efficient investment in

rural infrastructure. Fifth, the proposal

may hinder the competitive entry in

rural study areas by creating an

additional incentive for incumbents to

oppose the designation of eligible

telecommunications carriers in rural

study areas. Finally, we are concerned

that the proposal would require

complex and administratively

burdensome regulations to implement.

B. Issues for Comment

3. Although we decline, at this time,

to adopt the Rural Task Force’s proposal

to freeze per-line support in rural carrier

study areas in which a competitive

eligible telecommunications carrier is

providing service, we recognize that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34605

excessive fund growth may occur during

this five-year plan. We note that the

indexed cap on high-cost loop support

would not check this growth fully,

because support received by

competitive carriers currently is not

included within the cap. To develop the

record on this issue more fully, we

invite interested parties to propose

possible alternative measures that may

be appropriate to address this issue. We

also invite commenters to address the

likelihood that such measures may be

necessary to prevent excessive fund

growth during the five-year period.

4. One possible approach suggested

by commenters would be to freeze

support only when a competitive carrier

serves a specific percentage of the total

lines within a study area. Under this

approach, the Commission would adopt

a threshold percentage of lines lost for

triggering the freeze. As discussed,

however, a simple threshold

requirement would fail to target study

areas where the excessive fund growth

is most likely to occur, because it could

not distinguish captured from new

subscriber lines. With regard to any

proposal to freeze support, commenters

should address whether support should

be frozen for the study area, the

competitor’s service area, or the

incumbent’s specific disaggregation

zone. We also invite commenters to

propose other alternatives. Commenters

should address the administrative

feasibility of any such proposals, and

whether they are consistent with the

principles of encouraging investment in

rural infrastructure and promoting

competitive entry.

5. Although we are not convinced of

the likelihood of excessive fund growth

due to competitive entry in high-cost

areas during the life of this five-year

plan, we intend to resolve the issues

raised in this FNPRM expeditiously

after we have developed the record

more fully. In the meantime, as

discussed, we intend to closely monitor

the impact of competitive entry in rural

carrier study areas to ensure that

excessive fund growth does not occur,

consistent with our obligation in section

254 to maintain a specific, predictable,

and sufficient universal service fund.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

6. 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 FNPRM. Written public

comments are requested on this IRFA.

Comments must be identified as

responses to the IRFA and must be filed

by the deadlines, and should have a

separate and distinct heading

designating them as responses to the

IRFA. The Commission will send a copy

of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

SBA. 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

7. In the Order accompanying this

FNPRM, we modify the rural high-cost

mechanism. While we declined to adopt

the Rural Task Force’s proposal to freeze

per-line support in rural carrier study

areas in which a competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier is providing

service, we recognized that excessive

fund growth may occur during the fiveyear duration of the interim plan. We

noted that the indexed cap on high-cost

loop support would not check this

growth fully, because support received

by competitive carriers is not included

within the cap. To develop the record

on this issue more fully, we issue this

FNPRM and invite interested parties to

propose possible alternative measures

that may be appropriate to address this

issue. We also invite commenters to

address the likelihood that such

measures may be necessary to prevent

excessive fund growth during the fiveyear period.

8. Although we are not convinced of

the likelihood of excessive fund growth

due to competitive entry in high-cost

areas during the life of this five-year

plan, we intend to resolve the issues

raised in this FNPRM expeditiously

after we have developed the record

more fully.

2. Legal Basis

9. The legal basis as proposed for this

FNPRM is contained in sections 4(i),

4(j), 201–205, 254, and 403 of the

Communications Act of 1934 (as

amended by the Telecommunications

Act of 1996).

3. Description and Estimate of Small

Entities to Which Rules Will Apply

10. 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 adopted herein. 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. 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) meets any additional criteria

established by the Small Business

Administration (SBA).

11. We have included small

incumbent local exchange carriers in

this 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

local exchange carriers are not dominant

in their field of operation because any

such dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in

scope. We have therefore included small

incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis,

although we emphasize that this RFA

action has no effect on the

Commission’s analyses and

determinations in other, non-RFA

contexts.

12. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither

the Commission nor the SBA has

developed a definition for small

providers of local exchange services.

The closest applicable definition under

the SBA rules is for telephone

communications companies other than

radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

According to the most recent Trends

Report data, 1,335 incumbent carriers

reported that they were engaged in the

provision of local exchange services. We

do not have data specifying the number

of these carriers that are either dominant

in their field of operations, 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

local exchange carriers that would

qualify as small business concerns

under the SBA’s definition. Of the 1,335

incumbent carriers, 13 entities are price

cap carriers that are not subject to these

rules. Consequently, we estimate that

fewer than 1,322 providers of local

exchange service are small entities or

small incumbent local exchange carriers

that may be affected.

13. Competitive Access Providers.

Neither the Commission nor the SBA

has developed a definition of small

entities specifically applicable to

competitive access services providers

(CAPs). The closest applicable

definition under the SBA rules is for

telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone (wireless)

companies. According to the most

recent Trends Report data, 349 CAPs/

34606 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules

competitive local exchange carriers and

60 other local exchange carriers

reported that they were engaged in the

provision of competitive local exchange

services. 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

CAPs that would qualify as small

business concerns under the SBA’s

definition. Consequently, we estimate

that there are less than 349 small entity

CAPs and 60 other local exchange

carriers that may be affected.

14. Cellular Licensees. Neither the

Commission nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small entities applicable

to cellular licensees. Therefore, the

applicable definition of 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;

however, a cellular licensee may own

several licenses. In addition, according

to the most recent Telecommunications

Industry Revenue data, 806 carriers

reported that they were engaged in the

provision of either cellular service or

Personal Communications Service (PCS)

services, 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 808 small cellular service

carriers that may be affected.

15. Broadband Personal

Communications Service (PCS). 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 their 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.

16. 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.

17. Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR).

The Commission awards bidding credits

in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz

and 900 MHz SMR licenses to firms that

had revenues of no more than $15

million in each of the three previous

calendar years. In the context of both

the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR, a

definition of ‘‘small entity’’ has been

approved by the SBA.

18. These fees 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 no

more than $15 million. One firm has

over $15 million in revenues. We

assume, for purposes of this FRFA, that

all of the remaining existing extended

implementation authorizations are held

by small entities, as that term is defined

by the SBA.

19. For geographic area licenses in the

900 MHz SMR band, there are 60 who

qualified as small entities. For the 800

MHz SMR’s, 38 are small or very small

entities.

20. 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 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.

21. 39 GHz Licensees. Neither the

Commission nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small entities applicable

to 39 GHz licensees. Therefore, the

applicable definition of 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.

For purposes of the 39 GHz license

auction, the Commission defined ‘‘small

entity’’ as an entity that has average

gross revenues of less than $40 million

in the three previous calendar years,

and ‘‘very small entity’’ as an entity that

has average gross revenues of not more

that $15 million for the preceding three

calendar years. The Commission has

granted licenses to 29 service providers

in the 39 GHz service. 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 39 GHz

licensees that would qualify as small

business concerns under the SBA’s

definition. Consequently, we estimate

that there are no more than 29 39 GHz

small business providers that may be

affected.

4. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

22. In the Order accompanying this

FNPRM, the Commission revised the

reporting frequency of line count data in

study areas where competitive entry has

occurred. Prior to the Order’s adoption,

rural carriers were required to submit

line count data annually. The

Commission determined that the more

frequent reporting requirement was

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34607

necessary to ensure that only one carrier

receives support for each line served

and to monitor the concerns expressed

by the Rural Task Force with regard to

the potential impact of competitive

entry in rural carrier study areas. The

line count data submitted by carriers on

a quarterly basis under the Order should

be sufficient for the Commission to

implement any change it may adopt

pursuant to this FNPRM; however, the

issues of frequency of reporting and

timing of submission may need to be

revisited for implementation purposes.

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

23. The RFA requires an agency to

describe any significant alternatives that

it has considered in reaching its

proposed approach, which may include

the following four alternatives (among

others): (1) the establishment of

differing compliance or reporting

requirements or timetables that take into

account the resources available to small

entities; (2) the clarification,

consolidation, or simplification of

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 any part thereof,

for small entities.

24. Here, we have declined at this

time to freeze per-line support in rural

carriers’ study areas in which a

competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier is providing

service. Had we adopted the alternative

of the freeze, we would, we believe,

have also needed to adopt, e.g., complex

and administratively burdensome

implementing regulations. By seeking

additional comments on this issue,

including comment from small entities

regarding significant alternatives, we

hope to identify alternatives that would

include simpler reporting or other

compliance requirements. Thus, the

FNPRM under consideration herein

seeks to determine possible alternative

measures that may be appropriate to

address the issue of excessive fund

growth that may result from competitive

entry in rural study areas. We invite

comment on how any alternatives

proposed would be likely to affect small

businesses.

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

25. None.

B. Ex Parte

26. This is a non-restricted FNPRM

and comment rulemaking proceeding.

Ex parte presentations are permitted,

except during the Sunshine Agenda

period, provided they are disclosed as

provided in the Commission’s rules.

C. Comment Filing Procedures

27. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of

the Commission’s rules, interested

parties may file comments on or before

July 30, 2001, and reply comments on

or before August 28, 2001. Comments

may be filed using the Commission’s

Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS) or by filing paper copies.

28. 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 an

electronic comment by Internet e-mail.

To get 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. Parties

should also send three paper copies of

their filings to Sheryl Todd, Accounting

Policy Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Room 5–B540, Washington, DC 20554.

Parties who choose to file by paper

should also submit their comments on

diskette. These diskettes should be

submitted to Sheryl Todd, Accounting

Policy Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Room 5–B540, Washington, DC 20554.

In addition, commenters must send

diskette copies to the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.

III. Ordering Clauses

29. Pursuant to the authority

contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 201–205,

254, and 403 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, this Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC

Docket No. 96–45 is adopted.

30. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96–45,

including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 36

Jurisdictional separations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Telecommunications, Telephone.

47 CFR Part 54

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Telecommunications,

Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–16371 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P