56612 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC. Because of the 

controlled access restrictions, attendants 

will not be admitted beyond the lobby 

area of the Internal Revenue Building 

until 9:30 a.m. The IRS will prepare an 

agenda showing the scheduling of the 

speakers after the outlines are received 

from the persons testifying and make 

copies available free of charge at the 

hearing. 

Guy R. Traynor, 

Acting Chief, Publication and Regulations 

Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel (Procedure and 

Administration). 

[FR Doc. 05–19405 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R06–OAR–2005–TX–0016; FRL–7975–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Permits by Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision for the State of Texas. This 

action removes a provision from the 

Texas SIP which provided public notice 

and opportunity for public comment for 

concrete batch plants which were 

constructed under a permit by rule 

(PBR). On September 1, 2000, Texas 

replaced the PBR for concrete batch 

plants with a standard permit for 

concrete batch plants. The standard 

permit for concrete batch plants also 

requires public notice for concrete batch 

plant subject to the standard permit. 

Texas maintained the public notice 

requirements of its PBR to assure that 

proper procedures were followed for 

concrete batch plants that were 

permitted under the PBR prior to the 

effective date of the standard permit. All 

authorization requests for concrete 

batch plants which constructed under 

the PBR have now been resolved and 

the public notice and comment 

provisions under the PBR are no longer 

needed. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. David Neleigh, Chief, Air Permits 

Section (6PD–R), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7212; fax number 

(214) 665–7263; e-mail address 

spruiell.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action rule, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: September 19, 2005. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 05–19357 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[WT Docket No. 05–265, WT Docket No. 00–

193; FCC 05–160] 

Reexamination of Roaming Obligations 

of Commercial Mobile Radio Service 

Providers 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) 

initiated a new proceeding to examine 

whether its roaming requirements 

applicable to these CMRS providers 

should be modified, expanded, or 

eliminated given the current state of the 

CMRS market. In a related 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, the 

FCC terminated a pending proceeding 

without the adoption of rules 

concerning roaming requirements 

applicable to certain Commercial 

Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) 

providers because the record in that 

proceeding had become stale. 

DATES: Comments due on or before 

November 28, 2005 and reply comments 

are due on or before December 27, 2005. 

Written comments on the Paperwork 

Reduction Act proposed information 

collection requirements must be 

submitted by the public, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before 

November 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 05–265, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Include the docket 

number(s) in the subject line of the 

message. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

In addition to filing comments with 

the Secretary, a copy of any comments 

on the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

Judith B. Herman, Federal 

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20554, or via the Internet to JudithB.Herman@fcc.gov, and to Kristy L. 

LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 

10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, via the Internet 

to Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or 

via fax at 202–395–5167. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli 

Johnson at (202) 418–1395, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56613 

1See In the Matter of Reexamination of Roaming 

Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio Service 

Providers; Automatic and Manual Roaming 

Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio 

Services, WT Docket No. 05–265, Memorandum 

Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, FCC 05–160 (rel. August 31, 2005) 

(NPRM). 

2The terminated Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

was published in 65 FR 69891–01 (Nov. 21, 2000). 

See In the Matter of Automatic and Manual 

Roaming Obligations Pertaining to Commercial 

Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 00–193, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 00–361, 65 FR 

69891–01. 

3See NPRM at para. 18. 

4See NPRM at para. 20. 

5 Id. at para. 22. 

6 Id. at para. 23. 

7 Id. 

8See Application of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. 

and Cingular Wireless Corporation, WT Docket No. 

04–70, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC 

Rcd 21522, 21592 para. 182 (2004); Application of 

Western Wireless Corporation and ALLTEL 

Corporation, WT Docket No. 05–50, Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, FCC 05–138 at para. 108 (rel. 

July 19, 2005); Applications of Nextel 

Communications, Inc. and Sprint Corporation, WT 

Docket No. 05–63, Memorandum Opinion and 

Order, FCC 05–148 at para. 127 (rel. Aug. 8, 2005). 

9See NPRM at para. 23. 

10 Id. at para. 24. 

11 Id. at para. 25. 

12 Id. at para. 27. 

Eli.Johnson@fcc.gov, or Won Kim (202) 

418–1368, Won.Kim@fcc.gov, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Spectrum 

and Competition Policy Division. For 

additional information concerning the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, contact Judith B. 

Herman at (202) 418–0214, or via the 

Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 

05–265, WT Docket No. 00–193, 

released August 31, 2005. The full text 

of the NPRM is available for public 

inspection on the Commission’s Internet 

site at http://www.fcc.gov. It is also 

available for inspection and copying 

during regular business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The full text of this document 

also may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplication contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th St., SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 

488–5300; fax (202) 488–5563; e-mail 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis: This document does not 

contain proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

1. In the Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making (NPRM), the FCC initiated a 

proceeding to examine whether its 

roaming requirements applicable to 

CMRS providers should be modified, 

expanded, or eliminated given the 

current state of the CMRS market.1 In a 

related Memorandum Opinion and 

Order (MO&O), the FCC also terminated 

an existing proceeding without the 

adoption of rules that addressed similar 

issues because the record had become 

stale.2 The FCC found that the tentative 

conclusions and proposed rules 

contained in the earlier item no longer 

reflect the current CMRS marketplace. 

Accordingly, the FCC terminated the 

earlier roaming proceeding in WT 

Docket No. 00–193.3

2. In the NPRM, the FCC seeks to 

develop a record with up-to-date 

information on the state of roaming in 

today’s CMRS marketplace in order to 

determine what regulatory regime is 

currently appropriate for roaming 

services.4 Accordingly, the NPRM 

discusses and seeks comment on issues 

related to manual and automatic 

roaming, including issues concerning 

roaming negotiations, small and rural 

carrier concerns, and technical 

considerations. 

Manual Roaming 

3. The NPRM seeks up-to-date 

information on the practice of manual 

roaming and the continued utility of the 

manual roaming rule.5 Specifically, the 

FCC seeks comment on how often 

subscribers avail themselves of manual 

roaming.6 Given the evolution of the 

CMRS market and advancements in 

CMRS technologies, the NPRM asks, to 

what extent has manual roaming fallen 

into disuse or been replaced by 

automatic roaming? Further, given the 

role of manual roaming in today’s 

marketplace, the FCC requests comment 

regarding whether the manual roaming 

rule should be eliminated, either in 

combination with the promulgation of 

an automatic roaming rule or without 

such a rule. Alternatively, should the 

manual roaming rule be kept as a 

fallback for consumers when automatic 

roaming is unavailable? 7 In recent 

merger orders, the FCC imposed a 

condition prohibiting the merged 

company from blocking manual 

roaming.8 The FCC asks, therefore, to 

what extent is home carrier blocking of 

manual roaming a problem? 9 Is a rule 

change—as opposed to merger 

conditions—an appropriate way to 

address this issue? 

4. Further, the FCC seeks comment on 

whether any manual roaming 

requirement that it retains or adopts 

should be subject to a sunset provision 

and, if so, when such a sunset should 

occur.10 The FCC also asked whether 

any sunset of the manual roaming rule 

should be contingent upon adoption of 

an automatic roaming rule. 

Automatic Roaming 

5. The NPRM seeks up-to-date 

information on automatic roaming that 

would enable the FCC to fully consider 

the question and reach an informed 

decision about whether to adopt an 

automatic roaming rule.11 The NPRM 

invites interested parties to discuss in 

detail whether, in the absence of an 

automatic roaming requirement, there 

have been any CMRS industry changes 

and trends that have positively or 

negatively affected the availability of 

roaming to consumers. The FCC is 

interested in the effects that the existing 

roaming environment has on U.S. 

consumers.12 For example, what effect 

has the existing roaming environment 

had on the availability, quality and 

price of services to consumers? Is there 

any disparate impact on consumers 

using services in rural areas? The FCC 

seeks comment on the availability of 

automatic roaming to consumers in the 

absence of an automatic roaming 

requirement. Are there instances in 

which providers refused to enter into 

automatic roaming agreements with 

other providers with compatible 

systems, or where they have 

discriminated with respect to the prices 

or other terms on which they make 

roaming agreements available to 

different carriers? The FCC also seeks 

comment on whether CMRS industry 

mergers could increase the incentive for 

large, nationwide carriers to deny 

automatic roaming agreements to their 

local or regional competitors. The 

NPRM seeks comment regarding 

evidence of discriminatory roaming 

practices on an industry-wide basis as 

well as on a market-specific basis. 

Commenters are invited to discuss the 

current availability of automatic 

roaming services in various regions with 

specific data, including the quality of 

services and the impact of roaming 

services on ‘‘dead spots’’ in many less 

populated areas. 

6. The FCC requests that commenters 

address both the potential benefits of 

various regulatory options and the 

56614 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

13 Id. at para. 28. 

14 Id. at para. 29. 

15 Id. at para. 30. 

16 Id. at para. 31. 

17 Id. at para. 33. 

18 Id. 

19 Id. at para. 34. 

20 Id. at para. 35. 

21 Id. at para. 36. 

potential costs.13 For example, would an 

automatic roaming rule create 

disincentives to the growth of facilitiesbased competition, or to the continued 

development of carriers with 

nationwide footprints? Would such a 

rule impede the development of new 

and improved roaming features? Are 

there new and improved roaming 

services that have developed over the 

past few years in the absence of an 

automatic roaming requirement? In 

addition, how would constraints 

imposed by any particular roaming rule 

affect the competitiveness of particular 

carriers? Would a nondiscrimination 

rule or any other automatic roaming rule 

thwart CMRS carriers’ ability to 

compete vigorously on the basis of the 

particular roaming services provided, or 

otherwise impede carriers’ ability to 

differentiate their roaming services? 

Would the costs of a rule impact small 

carriers disproportionately, such that 

some form of exemption for those 

carriers would be appropriate? The 

NPRM invites commenters to provide 

economic analysis and data regarding 

the potential benefits and costs of 

imposing an automatic roaming rule. 

7. The NPRM also seeks comment on 

any administrative costs that would 

arise from a non-discrimination 

requirement or other automatic roaming 

rule, were such a rule to be 

implemented.14 With respect to a 

potential non-discrimination 

requirement in particular, the FCC seeks 

comment on any burdens that would 

arise from the need to determine 

whether carriers seeking roaming 

agreements are ‘‘similarly situated.’’

8. The FCC also seeks comment on 

how to assess technical compatibility in 

an automatic roaming environment.15

Under the existing manual roaming rule, 

the subscriber seeking to roam must first 

possess a handset that is technically 

capable of accessing the roamed-on 

system. Similarly, the FCC believes that 

if an automatic roaming requirement 

were imposed, the carrier seeking to 

enable its subscribers to roam on 

another system should have the burden 

of developing and implementing any 

technology that is necessary to achieve 

that result. In addition, the FCC stated 

that any automatic roaming rule should 

be sufficiently flexible to permit a 

carrier to change its system for 

legitimate business reasons (e.g., 

increasing capacity, spectrum 

efficiency, fraud control, or deployment 

of enhanced features) without any 

obligation to make its system accessible 

to roamers. At the same time it may be 

necessary within such a framework to 

adopt certain safeguards to ensure that 

a carrier takes reasonable actions to 

facilitate another carrier’s efforts to 

achieve the capability to access its 

system. The FCC asked commenters to 

address whether and to what extent a 

carrier should be obligated to facilitate 

another carrier’s efforts to access its 

system and invited comment on the 

possible design of a rule to balance 

these considerations, as well as on any 

other possible approaches. 

9. In addition, the FCC seeks 

comment on whether carriers currently 

use any method to inform their 

subscribers about when they are 

roaming on another carrier’s network 

and on whether the subscriber may 

incur additional charges as a result of 

such roaming.16 The FCC invites 

comment on industry practices relating 

to consumer education about roaming. 

Further, the FCC seeks comment on any 

other issue that a commenter believes is 

important for the Commission to 

consider as it determines whether it 

would be in the public interest to 

impose an automatic roaming 

requirement on CMRS providers, 

including, for example, any concerns 

regarding subscriber privacy or carriers’

control over proprietary information 

and whether any automatic roaming 

requirement that we adopt in this 

proceeding should be subject to a sunset 

provision and, if so, when such a sunset 

should occur. 

Roaming Agreements 

10. In the past, the FCC has suggested 

that one possible automatic roaming 

rule could require, as a condition of 

license, that covered providers that 

enter into roaming agreements with 

other such providers make like 

agreements available to similarly 

situated providers, where technically 

compatible handsets are being used, 

under non-discriminatory rates, terms, 

and conditions.17 Such a rule could 

prevent established carriers from 

entering into favorable agreements with 

selected providers while unreasonably 

denying such agreements to similarly 

situated carriers. The FCC seeks 

comment on whether an antidiscrimination approach to automatic 

roaming is appropriate in the current 

marketplace, or whether any other 

approaches should be considered.18

11. To the extent that a CMRS 

provider engages in unreasonable and 

discriminatory behavior by refusing to 

enter an automatic roaming agreement, 

the FCC also seeks comment on the 

adequacy of remedies under existing 

law, such as the means permitted under 

sections 201, 202, 208, 251, and 332 of 

the Act.19 The FCC seeks general 

comment on whether the avenues of 

complaint and redress afforded by these 

sections provide sufficient and 

appropriate means of ensuring the 

development of automatic roaming 

services in a competitive CMRS market, 

or whether an automatic roaming 

requirement is necessary in order to 

serve the public interest. 

12. Assuming that adoption of 

additional protections against 

discrimination is needed, the FCC seeks 

comment on whether an antidiscrimination approach to roaming 

should be examined on a nationwide or 

on a market-specific basis.20 Should any 

automatic roaming rule require a carrier 

to enter an automatic roaming 

arrangement on a nondiscriminatory 

basis with a facilities-based competitor 

in the same market (‘‘in-market’’

roaming)? For instance, do such 

agreements diminish carriers’ incentives 

for building out their networks? The 

NPRM seeks comment on how an 

exception that permits carriers to deny 

roaming agreements to ‘‘in-market’’

competitors could be administered, 

given the different geographic scope of 

cellular, broadband PCS, and SMR 

licenses. 

13. Similarly, the FCC seeks comment 

on whether providers should be 

permitted to offer roaming agreements 

to affiliates on different terms and 

conditions than to non-affiliates, or 

whether, instead, agreements favorable 

to affiliates constitute unreasonable, 

discriminatory behavior.21 The FCC 

seeks comment on whether it would 

serve the public interest to require 

carriers to make roaming service 

available to other carriers in one-way 

agreements under the same terms and 

conditions as under reciprocal 

agreements. The FCC also requests 

comment on whether a carrier should be 

able to offer a lower rate to a 

geographically proximate carrier. In 

addition, the FCC requests comment as 

to what extent, if any, an automatic 

roaming rule should encompass 

requirements specifically affecting 

resellers, and on the costs and benefits 

of any such requirements. The NPRM 

invites commenters to provide 

economic analysis and data supporting 

their positions. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56615 

22See SouthernLINC Wireless Reply Comments, 

WT Docket No. 05–63, at 5–6. 

23See NPRM at para. 37. 

24 Id. at paras. 38–40. 

25 Id. at para. 41. 

26 Id. at para. 42. 

27 Id. at para. 43. 

28RTG, WT Docket No. 00–193, Ex Parte, filed 

June 28, 2005, at 1. 

29 Id. 

30 Id. 

31See NPRM at para. 43. 

32See Facilitating the Provisions of SpectrumBased Services to Rural Areas and Promoting 

Opportunities for Rural Telephone Companies to 

Provide Spectrum-Based Services, WT Docket No. 

02–381, Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 04–166, 19 FCC Rcd 

19078, 19087 at para. 11 (2004), 69 FR 75144–01 

(Dec. 15, 2004), 69 FR 75174–01 (December 15, 

2004). 

33See NPRM at para. 44. 

34 Id. at para. 44. 

35 Id. 

36 Id. at para. 46. 

14. Finally, in the FCC proceeding 

addressing the Sprint-Nextel merger, 

SouthernLINC Wireless contended that 

it has been unable to negotiate a 

satisfactory roaming agreement with 

Nextel because the agreement restricts 

its subscribers to basic interconnected 

voice roaming and denies them access 

to push-to-talk, dispatch, or data 

roaming services.22 The FCC seeks 

comment on whether such denial of 

access to roaming services harms 

competition or consumers and, if so, 

how any automatic roaming rule should 

be crafted to address the issue.23 For 

example, should an automatic roaming 

rule require carriers to permit roaming 

access to all technical features of their 

systems, and/or require carriers to make 

the same features accessible to all of 

their roaming partners on a nondiscriminatory basis? The NPRM invites 

commenters to provide economic and 

technical analysis and data supporting 

their positions, including information 

on how common practices such as those 

alleged by SouthernLINC are within the 

industry. 

Small and Rural Carrier Concerns 

15. In various Commission 

proceedings, small and rural wireless 

service providers have asserted that 

CMRS industry mergers have 

significantly reduced their nationwide 

roaming options.24 The FCC seeks 

comment on these concerns raised by 

small and rural carriers.25 The NPRM 

invites commenters to submit economic 

analysis and data regarding evidence of 

discriminatory or non-discriminatory 

roaming practices on an industry-wide 

basis, and the impact of such practices 

on consumers. If roaming rates are 

declining among carriers, is this due to 

a more robust CMRS market or, as small 

and rural carriers claim, from the 

dwindling number of nationwide 

carriers favoring one another in roaming 

agreements to the exclusion of other 

carriers? The FCC seeks specific 

evidence of wireless providers denying 

roaming agreements to other providers 

in a manner that harms consumers. The 

FCC also seeks comment on and 

evidence of whether large, nationwide 

carriers are preferring one another over 

other carriers in roaming agreements, 

and whether such a preference is a 

violation of Section 202 of the 

Communications Act. 

16. In addition, the FCC seeks 

comment on whether large, nationwide 

carriers are engaging in the practice of 

barring their subscribers’ access to 

networks operated by other carriers.26 If 

so, does this type of practice violate the 

spirit of the Commission’s rule requiring 

carriers to provide roaming access by 

preventing subscribers from utilizing 

such a service? The NPRM invites 

comment on the assertion by small and 

rural carriers that large carriers are using 

their market power to develop one-sided 

roaming agreements, at terms more 

favorable to themselves. Should the FCC 

require nondiscriminatory, rather than 

one-sided, automatic roaming 

arrangements? In this regard, should 

large or nationwide carriers be required 

to make their networks available to all 

roaming partners on the same terms and 

conditions as they offer to their ‘‘mostfavored’’ roaming partners. Finally, the 

FCC seeks comment on whether large, 

nationwide carriers control ‘‘bottleneck’’

facilities that impact the ability of 

customers to roam onto or off of small 

and rural wireless networks. 

17. The FCC also seeks comment on 

whether the concerns raised by small 

and rural carriers should be examined 

on a regional or local basis.27 The NPRM 

notes that RTG has proposed ‘‘an 

automatic roaming mandate’’ that would 

only be applicable to small and ‘‘rural’’

markets where roaming partner options 

are at a minimum.28 RTG has also 

suggested in ex parte presentation that 

the Commission consider a ‘‘Tier IV’’

category of CMRS providers that would 

consist solely of CMRS carriers with 

100,000 customers or less.29 Under this 

proposal, Tier IV providers would be 

entitled to automatic roaming in rural 

markets with large, nationwide carriers 

at reasonable symmetrical rates as a 

‘‘check’’ against the abuse of market 

power by large carriers where they 

dominate the market.30 The FCC seeks 

comment on RTG’s proposal.31 Should 

the FCC consider an automatic roaming 

requirement specifically targeted to 

rural markets? If so, how should we 

define ‘‘rural’’ for this purpose? In the 

Rural Report and Order, the FCC 

established a baseline definition of 

‘‘rural area’’ as ‘‘those counties (or 

equivalent) with a population density of 

100 persons per square mile or less, 

based upon the most recently available 

Census data * * *.’’ 32 The FCC seeks 

comment on whether the definition in 

the Rural Report and Order or any other 

definition would be appropriate for any 

automatic roaming obligations 

contemplated in this proceeding. 

Technical Considerations 

18. Roaming on Enhanced Digital 

Networks. Another consideration in 

determining the need for and design of 

any automatic roaming requirement is 

the recent development by carriers of 

enhanced digital networks.33 If the FCC 

were to apply some form of automatic 

roaming requirement to 2G systems, it 

seeks comment on whether it should 

also apply to upgraded 2.5G or 3G 

systems as well.34 In addition, the FCC 

seeks comment on what impact an 

automatic roaming requirement would 

have on the incentive of carriers to 

invest in such upgrades.35 The FCC also 

seeks comment on whether a carrier that 

has upgraded its system should be 

required to enter into roaming 

agreements only with other carriers that 

have similarly upgraded their systems, 

or whether, alternatively, the 

Commission should require a carrier 

with 2.5 and 3G capabilities to enter 

into automatic roaming agreements with 

all or some subset of carriers (e.g., rural 

carriers) that employ the same digital 

technology (e.g., GSM or CDMA), even 

if the other carriers have not upgraded 

their systems. 

19. The FCC also seeks comment on 

the effect that automatic roaming would 

have on the capacity of 2.5 and 3G 

networks and the ability of carriers to 

offer full access to their own 

customers.36 The Commission stated it 

would be concerned if requiring a 

carrier to offer roaming service on its 

enhanced network to the customers of 

other carriers resulted in the carrier 

facing capacity constraints that 

adversely affect its own customers. The 

FCC therefore asks whether a carrier 

should have the right to limit access to 

its network by roamers, and what 

parameters should be considered as 

justification for such limits. The NPRM 

invites commenters to suggest specific 

standards for determining when the 

requirement should or should not apply. 

20. Roaming with Multi-Mode 

Handsets. Another technical 

consideration in the context of roaming 

56616 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

37 Id. at para. 47. 

38 Id. 

39 Id. at para. 48. 

40 Id. at para. 49. 

41For example, a small cellular GSM carrier 

might now enter into a roaming agreement with a 

nationwide cellular CDMA carrier operating in its 

area because both provide analog service. However, 

when the analog requirement terminates, the 

nationwide carrier would only be able to enter into 

a roaming agreement with a small CDMA carrier in 

the area—if one exists—and the GSM carrier would 

only be able to have a roaming agreement with a 

nationwide GSM carrier—if one exists in the area. 

42See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601–

612, has been amended by the Contract With 

America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 

1045–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II 

of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). 

43See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

44 Id. 

is that, in order for roaming on digital 

networks to be successful, a customer 

must have a handset that employs the 

same digital standard (e.g., GSM or 

CDMA) as the carrier on whose network 

the customer is roaming.37 However, if, 

in the future, handsets become available 

that employ multiple digital 

technologies or software-defined radio 

capabilities, this may reduce or 

eliminate technical impediments to the 

subscribers of any carrier roaming on 

any other carrier’s network. The FCC, 

therefore, seeks comment as to whether 

and how soon such technology 

developments may occur, and if so, 

what effect the availability of multitechnology handsets will have on 

carriers’ roaming options (e.g., if multitechnology handsets were available, 

should we require carriers using CDMA 

technologies to enter into roaming 

agreements with GSM carriers)? 38

21. Roaming on Analog Networks. In 

2002, the Commission established 

February 18, 2008 as the sunset date for 

the requirement that cellular carriers 

provide analog service.39 In light of the 

pending sunset of the analog 

requirement, the FCC seeks comment on 

whether it is necessary to extend any 

automatic roaming obligation that the 

Commission might adopt to analog 

networks. The FCC seeks comment on 

the extent to which analog systems are 

used in roaming today and whether 

there is a need to adopt automatic 

roaming for analog. 

22. Also, in the past the FCC has 

considered the possible effect of mergers 

on the roaming market for those 

wireless telephony consumers who rely 

on analog service.40 The FCC seeks 

comment on the extent to which 

roaming options will be affected once 

the analog requirement no longer 

exists.41 This information is relevant to 

better assess the state of the CMRS 

market and whether analog sunset will 

affect the market conditions, in the near 

future, in a manner that would justify 

adoption of an automatic roaming rule 

for digital networks. The NPRM requests 

that parties comment on this change and 

other technical changes and their 

possible effects on the roaming markets. 

Ex Parte Rules 

23. This is a permit-but-disclose 

notice and comment rulemaking 

proceeding. Ex parte presentations are 

permitted, except during the Sunshine 

Agenda period, provided they are 

disclosed pursuant to the Commission’s 

Rules. (See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 

1.1203, 1.1206.) 

Comment Period and Procedures 

24. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. 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, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: 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, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (tty). 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

25. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA),42 the Commission has prepared 

this present Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the NPRM provided in 

paragraph 53 of the item, and they must 

have a separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA. The Commission will send a copy 

of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA), 

in accordance with the RFA.43 In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register.44

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56617 

45 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

46 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

47 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in Small 

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

601(3), the statutory definition of a small business 

applies ‘‘unless an agency, after consultation with 

the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration and after opportunity for public 

comment, establishes one or more definitions of 

such term which are appropriate to the activities of 

the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 

Federal Register.’’

48Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. 

49 13 CFR 121.201, North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 517212. 

50 Id. 

51U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, 

Information—Subject Series, Establishment and 

Firm Size, Table 5 (Employment Size of Firms 

Subject to Federal Income Tax), NAICS code 

517212 (2002). The Census Bureau will be issuing 

2002 Economic Census data relating to 

telecommunications entities in late 2004. 

52 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212. 

53FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry 

Analysis and Technology Division, ‘‘Trends in 

Telephone Service’’ at Table 5.3, page 5–5 (May 

2004). This source uses data that are current as of 

October 22, 2003. 

Need for and Objectives of the Proposed 

Rules 

26. In the Memorandum Opinion and 

Order (MO&O) and NPRM, the 

Commission terminates the open 

proceeding relating to the automatic and 

manual roaming obligations of 

Commercial Mobile Radio Services 

(CMRS) providers in WT Docket No. 00–

193, and initiates a new proceeding to 

examine whether its current rules 

regarding roaming requirements 

applicable to CMRS providers should be 

modified given the current state of the 

CMRS market. In the MO&O portion of 

the item, the Commission terminates its 

previous consideration of roaming 

issues in WT Docket No. 00–193, 

primarily on the basis that the 

comments filed and the matters at issue 

therein are now stale due to the passage 

of time and other regulatory and 

industry changes that have occurred 

since its commencement. As a result, 

the Commission decides to terminate 

the proceeding without the adoption of 

rules. The Commission also decides to 

initiate a NPRM in a new proceeding to 

examine CMRS roaming in a manner 

that takes into account current 

technological and market conditions. 

The Commission’s decision will allow it 

to develop a record with up-to-date 

information regarding the state of 

today’s CMRS marketplace in an effort 

to determine whether there is a need for 

a regulatory regime for roaming services. 

27. Specifically, in the NPRM, the 

Commission seeks to establish a record 

on the current state of manual roaming 

and whether there is a continuing need 

for a manual roaming rule. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether carriers should be required to 

enter into agreements to allow 

automatic roaming on their networks 

and, if so, how such a rule should be 

designed, to whom should it apply, and 

for what period of time. Furthermore, 

the Commission requests comment on 

whether national carriers are negotiating 

roaming agreements with small or rural 

carriers in an anti-competitive manner 

or are simply avoiding their networks 

altogether and, if so, whether the 

Commission should establish an 

automatic roaming rule that applies to a 

specific market or type of carrier and for 

what period of time. Finally, the 

Commission seeks to establish a record 

on whether digital network and handset 

technology has advanced enough that 

there are no longer technical limitations 

affecting the likely provision of 

roaming. 

Legal Basis 

28. The potential actions on which 

comment is sought in this NPRM would 

be authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 

201(b), 251(a), 253, 303(r), and 

332(c)(1)(B) of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

154(i), 201(b), 251(a), 253, 303(r), and 

332(c)(1)(B). 

Description and Estimate of the Small 

Entities Subject to the Rules 

29. The RFA requires that an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis be 

prepared for notice-and-comment 

rulemaking proceedings, unless the 

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ 45 The RFA 

generally defines ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

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

and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ 46 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act.47 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).48

30. To assist the Commission in its 

analysis, commenters are requested to 

provide information regarding which 

CMRS entities would be affected by the 

regulations on which the Commission 

seeks comment in this NPRM. In 

particular, we seek estimates of how 

many small entities might be affected. 

31. The possible sunset of the existing 

‘‘manual’’ roaming rule, if adopted, 

would eliminate the requirement that 

covered cellular, broadband PCS and 

SMR carriers make service available to 

individual users upon request, so long 

as the roamer’s handset is technically 

capable of accessing their services. 

Sunsetting of this rule would be 

expected to reduce the existing 

regulatory burden, if any, on small 

businesses that must comply with the 

requirements of the ‘‘manual’’ roaming 

rule. 

32. The ‘‘automatic’’ roaming 

regulations on which the Commission 

seeks comment, if adopted, would apply 

to providers of cellular, broadband PCS, 

and SMR services that offer real-time, 

two-way switched voice or data service 

that is interconnected with the public 

switched network and utilizes an innetwork switching facility that enables 

the provider to reuse frequencies and 

accomplish seamless hand-offs of 

subscriber calls. 

33. Estimate for Cellular Licensees. 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for small 

businesses in the category ‘‘Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications.’’ 49

Under that SBA category, a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees.50 According to the Bureau 

of the Census, only twelve firms out of 

a total of 1,238 cellular and other 

wireless telecommunications firms 

operating during 1997 had 1,000 or 

more employees.51 Therefore, even if all 

12 of these firms were cellular 

telephone companies, nearly all cellular 

carriers are small businesses under the 

SBA’s definition. 

34. In addition, we can assess data 

provided annually to the Commission 

by Telecommunications Relay Service 

(TRS) carriers. The TRS data 

compilation, published in the 

Commission’s Trends in Telephone 

Service, groups together cellular, 

personal communications services, and 

specialized mobile radio telephony 

carriers into a single category called 

‘‘Wireless Telephony.’’ As noted above, 

under the pertinent SBA small business 

size standard, a wireless business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees.52 According to Trends in 

Telephone Service data, 447 carriers 

have reported that they provide 

Wireless Telephony.53 Of that total, an 

estimated 245 are small providers, 

under the SBA size standard. Thus, we 

can estimate that the majority of such 

businesses are small. 

35. Additionally, any rules adopted 

pursuant to this rulemaking will apply 

to cellular licensees only if they offer 

56618 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

54See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the 

Commission’s Rules—Broadband PCS Competitive 

Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service 

Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96–59, FCC 96–278, 

Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850–7852 

paras. 57–60 (1996), 61 FR 33859 (July 1, 1996); see 

also 47 CFR 24.720(b). 

55See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the 

Commission’s Rules—Broadband PCS Competitive 

Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service 

Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 

7852 para. 60. 

56See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and 

Industry Analysis Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, 

Administrator, Small Business Administration, 

dated December 2, 1998. 

57FCC News, ‘‘Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block 

Auction Closes,’’ No. 71744 (rel. January 14, 1997). 

58See ‘‘C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS 

Auction Closes,’’ Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 

(WTB 1999). 

59 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1). 

60 Id. 

61See ‘‘Correction to Public Notice DA 96–586 

‘FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction 

of 1020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major 

Trading Areas,’ ’’ Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 18367 

(WTB 1996). 

62See ‘‘Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,’’

Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002). 

63These incumbent entities, which were not 

subject to auctions, may also be assessed under the 

SBA’s generic small business size standard for this 

category which is 1,500 or few employees. 

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. 

36. Estimate for 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 has created a 

small business size standard for Blocks 

C and F as an entity that has average 

gross revenues of less than $40 million 

in the three previous calendar years.54

For Block F, an additional small 

business size standard 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.55 These small business 

size standards, in the context of 

broadband PCS auctions, have been 

approved by the SBA.56 No small 

businesses within the SBA-approved 

small business size standards 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.57 On 

March 23, 1999, the Commission 

reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block 

licenses; there were 113 small business 

winning bidders.58

37. Any rule modifications that will 

be made pursuant to this proceeding 

will apply to broadband PCS 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 broadband PCS licensees 

offer services meeting this description. 

38. Estimate for SMR Licensees. The 

Commission awards ‘‘small entity’’

bidding credits in auctions for SMR 

geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz 

and 900 MHz bands to firms that had 

revenues of no more than $15 million in 

each of the three previous calendar 

years.59 The Commission awards ‘‘very 

small entity’’ bidding credits to firms 

that had revenues of no more than $3 

million in each of the three previous 

calendar years.60 The Commission has 

held auctions for geographic area 

licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 

bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began 

on December 5, 1995, and closed on 

April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming 

that they qualified as small businesses 

under the $15 million size standard won 

263 geographic area licenses in the 900 

MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR 

auction for the upper 200 channels 

began on October 28, 1997, and was 

completed on December 8, 1997. Ten 

bidders claiming that they qualified as 

small businesses under the $15 million 

size standard won 38 geographic area 

licenses for the upper 200 channels in 

the 800 MHz SMR band.61 A second 

auction for the 800 MHz band was held 

on January 10, 2002 and closed on 

January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA 

licenses. One bidder claiming small 

business status won five licenses.62

39. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz 

SMR geographic area licenses for the 

General Category channels began on 

August 16, 2000, and was completed on 

September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 

108 geographic area licenses for the 

General Category channels in the 800 

MHz SMR band qualified as small 

businesses under the $15 million size 

standard. In an auction completed on 

December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 

Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 

channels of the 800 MHz SMR service 

were sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 

19 claimed ‘‘small business’’ status and 

won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all 

three auctions, 40 winning bidders for 

geographic licenses in the 800 MHz 

SMR band claimed status as small 

businesses. 

40. In addition, there are numerous 

incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees 

and licensees with extended 

implementation authorizations in the 

800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not 

know how many firms provide 800 MHz 

or 900 MHz geographic area SMR 

pursuant to extended implementation 

authorizations, nor how many of these 

providers have annual revenues of no 

more than $15 million.63 One firm has 

over $15 million in revenues. We 

assume, for purposes of this analysis, 

that all of the remaining existing 

extended implementation 

authorizations are held by small 

entities, as that small business size 

standard is established by the SBA. 

41. Additionally, any rules adopted 

pursuant to this rulemaking will apply 

to SMR 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 

many small business SMR licensees do 

not offer services meeting this 

description. Nonetheless, in the absence 

of definitive information, we assume 

that all of the Commission’s SMR 

licensees that are small businesses may 

be subject to any rules that may be 

adopted in this proceeding. 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements 

42. The Commission anticipates that 

any rules that may be adopted pursuant 

to this Notice will impose at most only 

limited reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. The only compliance 

costs likely to be incurred are 

administrative costs to ensure that an 

entity’s practices are in compliance with 

the rule. The only compliance 

requirement of any possible new rules is 

that licensees subject to any automatic 

roaming requirement (i.e., cellular 

licenses, broadband PCS licensees, and 

geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz 

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

data service) will need to provide nondiscriminatory access to their wireless 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56619 

64See NPRM at paras. 28, 38–43. 

65 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 66See NPRM at para. 28. 

systems via automatic roaming once 

they reach an agreement with any 

carrier to permit automatic roaming. As 

noted above in this IRFA and in the text 

of the NPRM, the Commission seeks 

comment on the potential costs of 

implementing an automatic roaming 

requirement in this context, including 

such potential costs on small business.64

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

43. 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.65

44. As noted, the possible sunset of 

the manual roaming rule, if adopted, 

would be expected to reduce any 

existing economic impact on small 

business. Therefore, the only possible 

negative economic impacts that might 

arise from this NPRM are those what 

would be associated with an 

‘‘automatic’’ roaming rule. 

45. However, as discussed in the 

NPRM, small and rural wireless service 

providers have requested that the 

Commission adopt an automatic 

roaming rule in some form. Small and 

rural service providers assert that CMRS 

industry mergers have significantly 

reduced their nationwide roaming 

options. With a reduced number of 

nationwide roaming partners available, 

small and rural carriers are concerned 

that the remaining nationwide carriers 

will be able to use increased market 

power to adversely affect roaming 

negotiations in the future. These carriers 

contend that the large nationwide 

service providers are able to exercise 

market power through an advantageous 

bargaining position that affects not just 

the ability of small and rural carriers to 

enter into roaming agreements, but the 

terms of such agreements. Small and 

rural carriers also claim that numerous 

incompatible technologies further 

reduce their bargaining power. 

46. Additionally, small and rural 

carriers assert that the amount of 

roaming traffic they exchange with other 

carriers has been significantly reduced 

as the large carriers enter into roaming 

agreements with other larger carriers 

and avoid roaming on smaller carriers’

networks. These small carriers believe 

such behavior is indicative of a larger 

industry trend where the larger carriers 

have begun to favor each other to the 

exclusion of smaller competitors, 

ignoring high cost rural areas. These 

carriers state that a substantial portion 

of their revenue comes from roaming 

revenue and the loss of such revenue 

makes it difficult for them to remain 

viable. They assert that favorable deals 

between large carriers eliminate a vital 

source of revenue for small and rural 

carriers. Furthermore, small carriers 

contend that the large carriers’ practice 

of negotiating favorable roaming deals 

with one another constitutes 

unreasonable discrimination in 

violation of section 202 of the 

Communications Act. 

47. Small and rural carriers also assert 

that with industry consolidation, large 

carriers behave in an anti-competitive 

manner with respect to roaming. They 

contend that consolidation has allowed 

large, nationwide CMRS carriers to use 

their increased market power to demand 

asymmetrical roaming rates from small, 

rural carriers. In certain cases, they 

assert, rural carriers must pay over five 

times as much to allow their customers 

to roam on nationwide carrier networks 

as the nationwide carriers pay for their 

customers to roam on rural networks. 

They argue that these asymmetrical 

roaming rates harm rural consumers and 

prevent small and rural carriers from 

offering their rural subscribers viable 

nationwide service plans that would 

allow rural subscribers to roam on 

nationwide carriers’ networks. 

48. As a result of these assertions, the 

Commission seeks comment in the 

NPRM on the concerns raised by small 

and rural carriers. The Commission asks 

commenters to submit economic 

analysis and data regarding evidence of 

discriminatory or non-discriminatory 

roaming practices on an industry-wide 

basis, and the impact of such practices 

on consumers. The Commission 

requests information on whether 

roaming rates are declining among 

carriers, and, if so, whether this is due 

to a more robust CMRS market or, as 

small and rural carriers claim, from the 

dwindling number of nationwide 

carriers favoring one another in roaming 

agreements to the exclusion of other 

carriers. The Commission seeks specific 

evidence of wireless providers denying 

roaming agreements to other providers 

in a manner that harms the providers or 

consumers. The NPRM also seeks 

comment on and evidence of whether 

large, nationwide carriers are preferring 

one another over other carriers in 

roaming agreements, and whether such 

a preference is a violation of section 202 

of the Communications Act. 

49. In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether large, nationwide 

carriers are engaging in the practice of 

barring their subscribers’ access to 

networks operated by other carriers. If 

so, the Commission asks, does this type 

of practice violate the spirit of its rule 

requiring carriers to provide roaming 

access by preventing subscribers from 

utilizing such a service? The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

assertion by small and rural carriers that 

large carriers are using their market 

power to develop one-sided roaming 

agreements, at terms more favorable to 

themselves. The NPRM asks whether 

the Commission should require 

nondiscriminatory, rather than onesided, automatic roaming arrangements. 

In this regard, the NPRM asks whether 

large or nationwide carriers should be 

required to make their networks 

available to all roaming partners on the 

same terms and conditions as they offer 

to their ‘‘most-favored’’ roaming 

partners. Moreover, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether large, 

nationwide carriers control ‘‘bottleneck’’

facilities that impact the ability of 

customers to roam onto or off of small 

and rural wireless networks. Finally, the 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether the concerns raised by small 

and rural carriers should be examined 

on a regional or local basis. 

50. The Commission will draw on the 

information gained from comments filed 

in response to the NPRM when 

considering whether an automatic 

roaming rule should be promulgated, 

and if so, how it can best be drafted to 

minimize any costs placed on small 

businesses. For instance, the 

Commission asks whether the 

alternative of an exemption tailored for 

small business would be appropriate 

given the possible costs of an automatic 

roaming rule.66

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

51. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

52. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 

251(a), 253, 303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B) of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 

251(a), 253, 303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B), and 

sections 1.411 and 1.412 of the 

56620 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.411 and 

1.412, the Memorandum Opinion & 

Order and Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is adopted. 

53. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 201(b), 

251(a), 253, 303(r) and 332(c)(1)(B) of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 251(a), 253, 

303(r) and 332(c)(1)(B), and sections 

1.411 and 1.412 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.411 and 1.412, the 

automatic and manual roaming 

rulemaking proceeding in WT Docket 

No. 00–193 is terminated. 

54. The Petition for Commission 

Action filed by the Rural 

Telecommunications Group, Inc. on 

November 1, 2004 is granted, to the 

extent described in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

55. Notice is given of the proposed 

regulatory changes described in this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and 

comment is sought on these proposals. 

56. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–19346 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 23 

[IB Docket No. 05–216; FCC 05–130] 

Elimination of Part 23 of the 

Commission’s Rules and Spectrum 

Usage by Satellite Network Earth 

Stations and Space Stations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) proposed to 

eliminate part 23 of the Commission’s 

rules, governing International Fixed 

Public Radiocommunication Services 

(IFPRS). We instead propose to regulate 

IFPRS services pursuant to part 101, 

which includes rules applicable to other 

fixed services. This should simplify the 

Commission’s rules and eliminate 

necessary burdens on IFPRS licenses. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

October 28, 2005 and reply comments 

are due on or before November 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comment, 

identified by [docket number and/or 

rulemaking number], by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

For detail instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Spaeth (202) 418–1539, Satellite 

Division, International Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC 20554. For additional 

information concerning the information 

collection(s) contained in this 

document, contact Judith B. Herman at 

202–418–0214, or via the Internet at 

Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in IB 

Docket No. 05–216, adopted June 20, 

2005 and released on June 24, 2005. The 

full text of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202–

488–5300, facsimile 202–488–5563, or 

via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency 

comments are due November 28, 2005. 

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. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on 

how we might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’

Summary of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

A. Elimination of Part 23 

1. At this time, we initiate a new 

proceeding to propose eliminating part 

23 completely and applying the 

requirements of part 101 of the 

Commission’s rules to IFPRS services. 

Part 101 establishes procedures for 

many terrestrial fixed services other 

than IFPRS. The Commission created 

part 101 in 1996, to replace parts 21 and 

94 of the Commission’s rules. 

Eliminating part 23 of the Commission’s 

rules and including IFPRS services in 

the part 101 framework might serve the 

same purposes. In addition, eliminating 

distinctions in regulation between 

international and domestic fixed public 

radio services would be consistent with 

the Commission’s elimination of such 

distinctions in fixed satellite service 

regulations. 

2. Specifically, we proposed allowing 

future IFPRS licensees to apply for a 

license pursuant to the rules in part 1, 

subpart F, ‘‘Wireless 

Telecommunications Services 

Applications and Proceedings.’’ In 

addition, we invite comments on 

revising § 101.147 of the Commission’s 

rules to require any future IFPRS 

licenses to operate in the 3700–4200 

MHz and the 10,700–11,700 MHz bands. 

These bands are available for fixed 

microwave services, and are currently 

shared with IFPRS. The 2110–2130 MHz 

and 2160–2180 MHz bands are also 

currently assigned to fixed microwave 

services and shared with IFPRS, but we 

proposed eliminating the assignment of 

these bands to IFPRS in part 101 of the 

Commissions’ rules because these bands 

are in the process of a transition to a 

reassignment to emerging technology 

(ET). Together with these revisions to 

part 101 of the Commission’s rules, we 

also propose revising the Table of 

Frequency of Allocation to eliminate 

reference to part 23 in Column 6 and to