26906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

2. Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

3. Provide any technical information 

or data you used that support your 

views. 

4. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns. 

5. Offer alternatives. 

6. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

identify the appropriate docket 

identification number in the subject line 

on the first page of your response. It 

would also be helpful if you provided 

the name, date, and Federal Register 

citation related to your comments. 

7. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

Do not submit information you are 

claiming as CBI to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. For CBI information in 

a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

as CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Dated: May 6, 2010. 

Brian J. McLean, 

Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11430 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

46 CFR Parts 520 and 532 

[Docket No. 10–03] 

NVOCC Negotiated Rate 

Arrangements; Notice of Public 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has 

determined to hold a public meeting on 

May 24, 2010 to receive oral comments 

concerning the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking published May 7, 2010 (75 

FR 25150) regarding NVOCC Negotiated 

Rate Arrangements. 

DATES: Requests to participate in the 

Public Meeting are due by May 14, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Address all requests to 

appear to: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 800 

North Capitol Street, NW., Room 1046, 

Washington, DC 20573–0001, (202) 523– 

5725, E-mail: secretary@fmc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal 

Maritime Commission, 800 North 

Capitol Street, NW., Room 1046, 

Washington, DC 20573–0001, (202) 523– 

5725, E-mail: secretary@fmc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

29, 2010, the Federal Maritime 

Commission issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) 

proposing a new part 532, providing an 

exemption for non-vessel-operating 

common carriers (‘‘NVOCCs’’) agreeing 

to negotiated rate arrangements from 

certain provisions and requirements of 

the Shipping Act of 1984 and certain 

provisions and requirements of the 

Commission’s regulations. The NPRM 

also announced that the Commission 

would hold a public meeting if any 

member of the public made a request to 

make oral comments. Such a request has 

been received and the Commission has 

determined to convene this public 

meeting on May 24, 2010. The meeting 

will be held in the Commission’s Main 

Hearing Room, Room 100, 800 North 

Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

Requests to appear at the meeting 

must be filed with the Office of the 

Secretary no later than 5 p.m. on May 

14, 2010, and include the name, street 

address, e-mail address, telephone 

number, and the name of your company 

or employer, if any. Parties wishing to 

participate should also provide a brief 

statement describing the nature of their 

business, e.g., Federal government 

agencies, OTIs, associations, 

consultants, tariff publisher and vesseloperating common carriers. 

Requests to appear should be 

addressed to the Office of the Secretary 

and submitted: By e-mail as an 

attachment (Microsoft Word) sent to 

secretary@fmc.gov; by facsimile to 202– 

523–0014; or by U.S. mail or courier to 

Federal Maritime Commission, 800 

North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20573. Please note, to avoid delay, 

e-mail or facsimile submissions are 

encouraged. The Commission will 

announce the time of the meeting, the 

order of presentation, and time 

allotment prior to the May 24, 2010 

meeting. 

By the Commission. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11425 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; GN Docket No. 09– 

51, WC Docket No. 05–337; FCC 10–58] 

Connect America Fund, A National 

Broadband Plan for Our Future, HighCost Universal Service Support 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) delivered to 

Congress a National Broadband Plan 

recommending that the Commission 

adopt cost-cutting measures for existing 

voice support and create a Connect 

America Fund, without increasing the 

overall size of the Fund, to support the 

provision of broadband communications 

in areas that would be unserved without 

such support or that depend on 

universal service support for the 

maintenance of existing broadband 

service. This document and the 

companion Notice of Inquiry is the first 

in a series of proceedings to implement 

that vision. This proceeding will 

develop the detailed analytic foundation 

necessary for the Commission to 

distribute funds in an efficient, targeted 

manner that avoids waste and 

minimizes burdens on American 

consumers. This document seeks 

comment on specific common-sense 

reforms to cap growth and cut 

inefficient funding in the legacy highcost support mechanisms and to shift 

the savings toward broadband 

communications. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rules 

are due on or before July 12, 2010, and 

reply comments are due on or before 

August 11, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 10–90, GN 

Docket No. 09–51, WC Docket No. 05– 

337, 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:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 26907 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie King, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, (202) 418–7491 or TTY: 

(202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 

10–90, GN Docket No. 09–51, WC 

Docket No. 05–337; FCC 10–58, adopted 

April 21, 2010, and released April 21, 

2010. The complete text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The document may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Pursuant to §§ 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. 

• 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. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

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. 

In addition, one copy of each 

pleading must be sent to each of the 

following: 

• The Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554; Web site: http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1–800–378– 

3160; and 

• Charles Tyler, Telecommunications 

Access Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room 5–A452, Washington, DC 

20554; e-mail: Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov. 

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) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC 

to request reasonable accommodations 

for filing comments (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: fcc504@fcc.gov; 

phone: (202) 418–0530 or (202) 418– 

0432 (TTY). 

Filings and comments are also 

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. 

Copies may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY– 

B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact BCPI through its 

Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com, by 

e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by 

telephone at (202) 488–5300 or (800) 

378–3160 (voice), (202) 488–5562 

(TTY), or by facsimile at (202) 488– 

5563. 

I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

1. Controlling the Size of the High-Cost 

Program 

1. As an essential first step toward 

repurposing the universal service fund 

to support broadband as well as voice 

service, we must ensure that the size of 

the fund remains reasonable. The 

National Broadband Plan recommends 

that the Commission take steps to 

manage the universal service fund so 

that its total size remains close to its 

current level (in 2010 dollars) to 

minimize the burden of increasing 

universal service contributions on 

consumers. The Commission already 

has taken action to control the overall 

size of the high-cost fund. In 2008, the 

Commission adopted on an interim 

basis an overall competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier (ETC) highcost cap of approximately $1.4 billion, 

pending comprehensive USF reform. 

Similarly, today we seek comment on 

capping legacy high-cost support 

provided to incumbent telephone 

companies at 2010 levels, which would 

have the effect of creating an overall 

ceiling for the legacy high-cost program. 

Such a cap would remain in place while 

the Commission determines how to 

distribute funds in a more efficient, 

targeted manner to those areas of the 

country where no firm can operate 

profitably without government support, 

while minimizing burdens on American 

consumers who ultimately pay for 

universal service through carrier passthrough charges. 

2. We seek comment on how the 

Commission could implement such a 

cap. Alternatively, we invite other 

proposals that would ensure that the 

overall size of the high-cost fund stays 

at or below current levels. Should the 

Commission impose an overall cap on 

legacy high-cost support for incumbent 

LECs at 2010 levels? Should the 

Commission impose a cap on each 

individual high-cost mechanism (to the 

extent each is not already capped) at 

2010 levels? Should the Commission 

freeze per-line support for each carrier 

at 2010 levels? For example, the 

Alliance for Rural CMRS Carriers 

proposed that incumbent LEC support 

amounts per line be capped at either 

March 2008 or March 2010 levels. We 

seek comment on this proposal. 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

freeze the total amount of support a 

carrier receives in a particular study 

area at 2010 levels? Are there other 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
26908 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ways to implement such a cap? What 

rule changes would be required to 

implement this proposal? How would 

the Commission implement this 

proposal in conjunction with the 

reforms identified in the following 

paragraphs? In addition, what 

implications would this proposal have 

for other Commission rules, as such the 

Commission’s current pricing rules, and 

should the implementation of this 

proposal be coordinated with any other 

regulatory actions? 

2. Specific Steps To Cut Legacy HighCost Support 

3. As discussed in more detail below, 

the National Broadband Plan identifies 

several specific first steps that could 

reduce funding in the legacy high-cost 

support mechanisms and recommends 

that those savings be used to further the 

goals of universalizing broadband 

without increasing the overall size of 

the universal service fund. The National 

Broadband Plan recognizes that shifting 

funds could have transitional impacts 

and recommends that ‘‘[a]s the FCC 

considers this policy shift, it should 

take into account the impact of potential 

changes in free cash flows on providers’ 

ability to continue to provide voice 

service and on future broadband 

network deployment strategies.’’ Below, 

we seek comment on the first steps set 

forth in the National Broadband Plan. 

To the extent that any commenter 

believes that these proposals, or the 

proposal to cap legacy high-cost 

support, would negatively affect 

affordable voice service for consumers 

today, we would encourage such a 

commenter to identify all assumptions 

and to provide data, including 

information on network investment 

plans over the next five years and free 

cash flows, to support that position. The 

intent of these proposals is to eliminate 

the indirect funding of broadbandcapable networks today through our 

legacy high-cost programs, which is 

occurring without transparency or 

accountability for the use of funds to 

extend broadband service. We seek 

comment on the timing of implementing 

such reforms in conjunction with the 

creation of a more efficient and targeted 

framework that will provide support for 

broadband and voice. We encourage 

commenters to address when each rule 

change should be implemented and how 

specific reforms should be sequenced to 

provide regulatory clarity for ongoing 

private sector investment. 

4. In addition, we seek comment on 

the relationship between such universal 

service reforms and carriers’ rates, 

including intercarrier compensation 

rates, under the Commission’s current 

pricing rules. We seek comment both on 

the likely rate impacts under existing 

pricing rules that would arise from the 

possible universal service reforms and 

any appropriate responses. We also note 

that many rural rate-of-return carriers 

participate in the National Exchange 

Carrier Association (NECA) pooling 

process for their interstate access 

charges. If universal service support 

under the legacy programs were frozen 

for such carriers, are there special 

considerations resulting from operation 

of the NECA pool that would unfairly 

advantage or disadvantage certain 

carriers? The Commission previously 

has expressed concern about the risks of 

continued participation in NECA pools 

by carriers that were subject to incentive 

regulation. We seek comment on 

whether such concerns would remain if 

all rate-of-return carriers converted to 

incentive regulation. Would the pool be 

able to continue to operate pursuant to 

regulation other than rate-of-return? 

5. Shifting Rate-of-Return Carriers to 

Incentive Regulation. The National 

Broadband Plan recommends that the 

Commission ‘‘require rate-of-return 

carriers to move to incentive 

regulation.’’ We seek comment on 

requiring current rate-of-return 

companies to convert to some form of 

incentive regulation. We note that a 

number of companies have voluntarily 

converted to price cap regulation in the 

last two years. In such cases, the 

Commission effectively converted the 

companies’ interstate common line 

support (ICLS) to a frozen amount per 

line. We seek comment on whether the 

Commission should replace rate-ofreturn regulation with the price-cap 

framework recently adopted for 

voluntary conversions, an alternative 

price-cap framework, or some other 

form of incentive regulation. We seek 

comment on the costs and the benefits 

that would be realized by converting all 

rate-of-return carriers to price cap 

regulation or other incentive regulation. 

We seek comment on whether, in an 

increasingly competitive marketplace, 

and with carriers’ service offerings 

expanding beyond regulated services, 

the current rate-of-return framework, 

which considers only regulated costs 

and revenues, has become less 

appropriate. 

6. We seek comment on whether we 

should convert ICLS to a frozen amount 

per line, which would have the effect of 

limiting growth in the legacy high-cost 

program. We seek comment on whether 

this reform should be implemented at 

the same time as any measures the 

Commission may adopt to provide 

targeted funding for the deployment of 

broadband-capable infrastructure to 

areas that are unserved, or should such 

a rule change occur before the 

development of the CAF, or otherwise 

be coordinated with some other 

regulatory action such as conversion to 

incentive regulation. The National 

Broadband Plan recognizes that the 

savings realized by eliminating future 

growth in the legacy ICLS program 

represent funding that could be 

redirected toward achieving broadbandrelated goals. We seek comment on this 

proposal. 

7. Elimination of Interstate Access 

Support. The National Broadband Plan 

also recommends that the Commission 

‘‘redirect access replacement funding 

known as Interstate Access Support 

(IAS) toward broadband deployment.’’ 

Thus, we now seek comment on the 

elimination of IAS. When the 

Commission created IAS in 2000, it said 

that it would revisit this funding 

mechanism ‘‘to ensure that such funding 

is sufficient, yet not excessive.’’ That reexamination has not occurred. 

8. Specifically, we now seek comment 

on eliminating §§ 54.800–54.809 of our 

rules and transferring any IAS funding 

levels as of the date of elimination to the 

new Connect America Fund to provide 

support for broadband-capable 

networks. We invite commenters to 

propose an appropriate timeline for the 

elimination of these rules and any glidepath that may be necessary to ensure 

that recipients continue to be able to 

provide voice services during the 

transition. 

9. Sprint and Verizon Wireless 

Voluntary Commitments. The National 

Broadband Plan also recommends that 

the Commission ‘‘issue an order to 

implement the voluntary commitments 

of Sprint and Verizon Wireless to 

reduce the High-Cost funding they 

receive as competitive ETCs to zero over 

a five-year period as a condition of 

earlier merger decisions.’’ The 

Commission will consider shortly an 

order clarifying how to implement 

Verizon Wireless’s and Sprint’s 

voluntary commitments. 

10. Elimination of Competitive ETC 

High-Cost Support. The National 

Broadband Plan recommends that the 

Commission phase out remaining 

competitive ETC funding under the 

existing funding mechanisms over a 

five-year period and target the savings 

toward the deployment of broadbandcapable networks and other reforms in 

the plan. We seek comment on this 

proposal. 

11. We seek comment on whether we 

should ramp down competitive ETC 

support under the legacy programs, and 

if so, how the transition should occur. 

For example, should the Commission 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 26909 

reduce support on a pro rata basis (e.g., 

20% reduction each year) for each state? 

Should the Commission reduce support 

at an accelerated rate of decline? Should 

the Commission reduce support on a 

proportional basis for all states, or in 

some other manner, and if so, on what 

basis? Would there be any impact on 

existing subscribers of competitive ETCs 

if the Commission were to reduce 

competitive ETC support under the 

legacy funding mechanisms? How 

should reductions in legacy high-cost 

support for all competitive ETCs be 

coordinated with implementation of 

Verizon Wireless’s and Sprint’s 

voluntary commitments to phase-out 

legacy high-cost support over a five-year 

period? 

12. General Proposals. Commenters 

are invited to submit other proposals to 

eliminate or reduce funding levels in 

the legacy high-cost support 

mechanisms to transition to efficient 

funding levels in the Connect America 

Fund. We encourage parties that submit 

alternative proposals to identify specific 

rule changes and quantify the impact of 

such changes. 

II. Procedural Matters 

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

13. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), the Commission 

prepared this Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission 

requests written public comments on 

this IRFA. Comments must be identified 

as responses to the IRFA and must be 

filed on or before the dates indicated on 

the first page of this NPRM. 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 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Notice 

14. On March 16, 2010, the 

Commission released a Joint Statement 

on Broadband stating that ‘‘[t]he nearly 

$9 billion Universal Service Fund (USF) 

and the intercarrier compensation (ICC) 

system should be comprehensively 

reformed to increase accountability and 

efficiency, encourage targeted 

investment in broadband infrastructure, 

and emphasize the importance of 

broadband to the future of these 

programs.’’ On the same day, the 

Commission delivered to Congress a 

National Broadband Plan 

recommending that the Commission 

adopt cost-cutting measures for existing 

voice support and create a Connect 

America Fund (CAF), without 

increasing the overall size of the Fund, 

to support the provision of broadband 

communications in areas that would be 

unserved without such support or that 

depend on universal service support for 

the maintenance of existing broadband 

service. 

15. The National Broadband Plan 

recommends that the Commission take 

steps to manage the universal service 

fund so that its total size remains close 

to its current level (in 2010 dollars) to 

minimize the burden of increasing 

universal service contributions on 

consumers. The NPRM seeks comment 

on specific common-sense reforms to 

contain growth in the legacy high-cost 

support mechanisms and identify 

savings that can be shifted toward 

broadband. Specifically, the NPRM 

seeks comment on capping legacy highcost support provided to incumbent 

telephone companies at 2010 levels; 

shifting rate-of-return carriers to 

incentive regulation and converting 

interstate common line support to a 

frozen amount per line; eliminating 

interstate access support; and 

eliminating high-cost support for 

competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers. 

2. Legal Basis 

16. This legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to the NPRM is 

contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201–205, 

214, 254, and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

201–205, 214, 254, and 403, and § 1.411 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.411. 

3. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

17. 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 and policies, if 

adopted. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

which: (1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

18. Small Businesses. Nationwide, 

there are a total of approximately 29.6 

million small businesses, according to 

the SBA. 

19. Small Organizations. Nationwide, 

as of 2002, there are approximately 1.6 

million small organizations. A ‘‘small 

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

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ 

20. Small Governmental Jurisdictions. 

The term ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as 

‘‘governments of cities, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than fifty thousand.’’ Census Bureau 

data for 2002 indicate that there were 

87,525 local governmental jurisdictions 

in the United States. We estimate that, 

of this total, 84,377 entities were ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we 

estimate that most governmental 

jurisdictions are small. 

21. We have included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers in 

this present RFA analysis. As noted 

above, 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 local exchange carriers in 

this RFA analysis, although we 

emphasize that this RFA action has no 

effect on Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

22. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (‘‘ILECs’’). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The appropriate size 

standard under SBA rules is for the 

category Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. According to 

Commission data, 1,311 carriers have 

reported that they are engaged in the 

provision of incumbent local exchange 

services. Of these 1,311 carriers, an 

estimated 1,024 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 287 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
26910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by our proposed action. 

23. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (‘‘CLECs’’), Competitive Access 

Providers (‘‘CAPs’’), ‘‘Shared-Tenant 

Service Providers,’’ and ‘‘Other Local 

Service Providers.’’ Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for these service providers. 

The appropriate size standard under 

SBA rules is for the category Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 1,005 

carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of either 

competitive access provider services or 

competitive local exchange carrier 

services. Of these 1,005 carriers, an 

estimated 918 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 87 have more than 1,500 

employees. In addition, 16 carriers have 

reported that they are ‘‘Shared-Tenant 

Service Providers,’’ and all 16 are 

estimated to have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. In addition, 89 carriers have 

reported that they are ‘‘Other Local 

Service Providers.’’ Of the 89, all have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

competitive local exchange service, 

competitive access providers, ‘‘SharedTenant Service Providers,’’ and ‘‘Other 

Local Service Providers’’ are small 

entities that may be affected by our 

proposed action. 

24. Local Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 151 

carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of local resale 

services. Of these, an estimated 149 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and two 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of local 

resellers are small entities that may be 

affected by our proposed action. 

25. Toll Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 815 

carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of toll resale 

services. Of these, an estimated 787 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 28 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities that may be 

affected by our proposed action. 

26. Interexchange Carriers (‘‘IXCs’’). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for providers of 

interexchange services. The appropriate 

size standard under SBA rules is for the 

category Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. According to 

Commission data, 300 carriers have 

reported that they are engaged in the 

provision of interexchange service. Of 

these, an estimated 268 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees and 32 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of IXCs are small entities that may be 

affected by our proposed action. 

27. Satellite Telecommunications and 

All Other Telecommunications. These 

two economic census categories address 

the satellite industry. The first category 

has a small business size standard of 

$15 million or less in average annual 

receipts, under SBA rules. The second 

has a size standard of $25 million or less 

in annual receipts. The most current 

Census Bureau data in this context, 

however, are from the (last) economic 

census of 2002, and we will use those 

figures to gauge the prevalence of small 

businesses in these categories. 

28. The category of Satellite 

Telecommunications ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing telecommunications services 

to other establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ For this category, 

Census Bureau data for 2002 show that 

there were a total of 371 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 307 firms had annual receipts of 

under $10 million, and 26 firms had 

receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 

Consequently, we estimate that the 

majority of Satellite 

Telecommunications firms are small 

entities that might be affected by our 

action. 

29. The second category of All Other 

Telecommunications comprises, inter 

alia, ‘‘establishments primarily engaged 

in providing specialized 

telecommunications services, such as 

satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operation. 

This industry also includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing satellite terminal stations and 

associated facilities connected with one 

or more terrestrial systems and capable 

of transmitting telecommunications to, 

and receiving telecommunications from, 

satellite systems.’’ For this category, 

Census Bureau data for 2002 show that 

there were a total of 332 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 303 firms had annual receipts of 

under $10 million and 15 firms had 

annual receipts of $10 million to 

$24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate 

that the majority of All Other 

Telecommunications firms are small 

entities that might be affected by our 

action. 

30. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, 

the Census Bureau has placed wireless 

firms within this new, broad, economic 

census category. Prior to that time, such 

firms were within the now-superseded 

categories of ‘‘Paging’’ and ‘‘Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications.’’ 

Under the present and prior categories, 

the SBA has deemed a wireless business 

to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Because Census Bureau data 

are not yet available for the new 

category, we will estimate small 

business prevalence using the prior 

categories and associated data. For the 

category of Paging, data for 2002 show 

that there were 807 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 804 

firms had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees, and three firms had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. For the category of Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications, 

data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of this total, 1,378 firms had 

employment of 999 or fewer employees, 

and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 

employees or more. Thus, we estimate 

that the majority of wireless firms are 

small. 

31. 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications 

Services. This service can be used for 

fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital 

audio broadcasting satellite uses. The 

Commission defined ‘‘small business’’ 

for the wireless communications 

services (‘‘WCS’’) auction as an entity 

with average gross revenues of $40 

million for each of the three preceding 

years, and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an 

entity with average gross revenues of 

$15 million for each of the three 

preceding years. The SBA has approved 

these definitions. The Commission 

auctioned geographic area licenses in 

the WCS service. In the auction, which 

was conducted in 1997, there were 

seven bidders that won 31 licenses that 

qualified as very small business entities, 

and one bidder that won one license 

that qualified as a small business entity. 

32. 1670–1675 MHz Services. An 

auction for one license in the 1670–1675 

MHz band was conducted in 2003. One 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 26911 

license was awarded. The winning 

bidder was not a small entity. 

33. Wireless Telephony. Wireless 

telephony includes cellular, personal 

communications services, and 

specialized mobile radio telephony 

carriers. As noted, the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). Under the SBA small business 

size standard, a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Trends in Telephone 

Service data, 434 carriers reported that 

they were engaged in wireless 

telephony. Of these, an estimated 222 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 

have more than 1,500 employees. We 

have estimated that 222 of these are 

small under the SBA small business size 

standard. 

34. Broadband Personal 

Communications Service. The 

broadband personal communications 

services (‘‘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. 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. These small business size 

standards, in the context of broadband 

PCS auctions, have been approved by 

the SBA. 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. In 1999, the Commission reauctioned 

155 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there 

were 113 small business winning 

bidders. 

35. In 2001, the Commission 

completed the auction of 422 C and F 

Broadband PCS licenses in Auction 35. 

Of the 35 winning bidders in this 

auction, 29 qualified as ‘‘small’’ or ‘‘very 

small’’ businesses. Subsequent events, 

concerning Auction 35, including 

judicial and agency determinations, 

resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block 

licenses being available for grant. In 

2005, the Commission completed an 

auction of 188 C block licenses and 21 

F block licenses in Auction 58. There 

were 24 winning bidders for 217 

licenses. Of the 24 winning bidders, 16 

claimed small business status and won 

156 licenses. In 2007, the Commission 

completed an auction of 33 licenses in 

the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction 71. 

Of the 14 winning bidders, six were 

designated entities. In 2008, the 

Commission completed an auction of 20 

Broadband PCS licenses in the C, D, E 

and F block licenses in Auction 78. 

36. Advanced Wireless Services. In 

2008, the Commission conducted the 

auction of Advanced Wireless Services 

(‘‘AWS’’) licenses. This auction, which 

as designated as Auction 78, offered 35 

licenses in the AWS 1710–1755 MHz 

and 2110–2155 MHz bands (‘‘AWS–1’’). 

The AWS–1 licenses were licenses for 

which there were no winning bids in 

Auction 66. That same year, the 

Commission completed Auction 78. A 

bidder with attributed average annual 

gross revenues that exceeded $15 

million and did not exceed $40 million 

for the preceding three years (‘‘small 

business’’) received a 15 percent 

discount on its winning bid. A bidder 

with attributed average annual gross 

revenues that did not exceed $15 

million for the preceding three years 

(‘‘very small business’’) received a 25 

percent discount on its winning bid. A 

bidder that had combined total assets of 

less than $500 million and combined 

gross revenues of less than $125 million 

in each of the last two years qualified 

for entrepreneur status. Four winning 

bidders that identified themselves as 

very small businesses won 17 licenses. 

Three of the winning bidders that 

identified themselves as a small 

business won five licenses. 

Additionally, one other winning bidder 

that qualified for entrepreneur status 

won 2 licenses. 

37. 700 MHz Band Licenses. The 

Commission previously adopted criteria 

for defining three groups of small 

businesses for purposes of determining 

their eligibility for special provisions 

such as bidding credits. The 

Commission defined a ‘‘small business’’ 

as an entity that, together with its 

affiliates and controlling principals, has 

average gross revenues not exceeding 

$40 million for the preceding three 

years. A ‘‘very small business’’ is defined 

as an entity that, together with its 

affiliates and controlling principals, has 

average gross revenues that are not more 

than $15 million for the preceding three 

years. Additionally, the lower 700 MHz 

Service had a third category of small 

business status for Metropolitan/Rural 

Service Area (‘‘MSA/RSA’’) licenses. The 

third category is ‘‘entrepreneur,’’ which 

is defined as an entity that, together 

with its affiliates and controlling 

principals, has average gross revenues 

that are not more than $3 million for the 

preceding three years. The SBA 

approved these small size standards. 

The Commission conducted an auction 

in 2002 of 740 licenses (one license in 

each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one 

license in each of the six Economic Area 

Groupings (EAGs)). Of the 740 licenses 

available for auction, 484 licenses were 

sold to 102 winning bidders. Seventytwo of the winning bidders claimed 

small business, very small business or 

entrepreneur status and won a total of 

329 licenses. The Commission 

conducted a second auction in 2003 that 

included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses 

and 476 Cellular Market Area licenses. 

Seventeen winning bidders claimed 

small or very small business status and 

won 60 licenses, and nine winning 

bidders claimed entrepreneur status and 

won 154 licenses. In 2005, the 

Commission completed an auction of 5 

licenses in the lower 700 MHz band 

(Auction 60). There were three winning 

bidders for five licenses. All three 

winning bidders claimed small business 

status. 

38. In 2007, the Commission adopted 

the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. 

The Order revised the band plan for the 

commercial (including Guard Band) and 

public safety spectrum, adopted services 

rules, including stringent build-out 

requirements, an open platform 

requirement on the C Block, and a 

requirement on the D Block licensee to 

construct and operate a nationwide, 

interoperable wireless broadband 

network for public safety users. In 2008, 

the Commission commenced Auction 73 

which offered all available, commercial 

700 MHz Band licenses (1,099 licenses) 

for bidding using the Commission’s 

standard simultaneous multiple-round 

(‘‘SMR’’) auction format for the A, B, D, 

and E block licenses and an SMR 

auction design with hierarchical 

package bidding (‘‘HPB’’) for the C Block 

licenses. Later in 2008, the Commission 

concluded Auction 73. A bidder with 

attributed average annual gross revenues 

that did not exceed $15 million for the 

preceding three years (very small 

business) qualified for a 25 percent 

discount on its winning bids. A bidder 

with attributed average annual gross 

revenues that exceeded $15 million, but 

did not exceed $40 million for the 

preceding three years, qualified for a 15 

percent discount on its winning bids. 

There were 36 winning bidders (who 

won 330 of the 1,090 licenses won) that 

identified themselves as very small 

businesses. There were 20 winning 

bidders that identified themselves as a 

small business that won 49 of the 1,090 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
26912 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

licenses won. The provisionally 

winning bids for the A, B, C, and E 

Block licenses exceeded the aggregate 

reserve prices for those blocks. 

However, the provisionally winning bid 

for the D Block license did not meet the 

applicable reserve price and thus did 

not become a winning bid. 

39. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In 

the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the 

Commission adopted size standards for 

‘‘small businesses’’ and ‘‘very small 

businesses’’ for purposes of determining 

their eligibility for special provisions 

such as bidding credits and installment 

payments. A small business in this 

service is an entity that, together with 

its affiliates and controlling principals, 

has average gross revenues not 

exceeding $40 million for the preceding 

three years. Additionally, a very small 

business is an entity that, together with 

its affiliates and controlling principals, 

has average gross revenues that are not 

more than $15 million for the preceding 

three years. SBA approval of these 

definitions is not required. In 2000, the 

Commission conducted an auction of 52 

Major Economic Area (‘‘MEA’’) licenses. 

Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 

licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five 

of these bidders were small businesses 

that won a total of 26 licenses. A second 

auction of 700 MHz Guard Band 

licenses commenced and closed in 

2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned 

were sold to three bidders. One of these 

bidders was a small business that won 

a total of two licenses. 

40. Specialized Mobile Radio. The 

Commission awards ‘‘small entity’’ 

bidding credits in auctions for 

Specialized Mobile Radio (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. 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. The SBA has approved 

these small business size standards for 

the 900 MHz Service. The Commission 

has held auctions for geographic area 

licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 

bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction was 

completed in 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 was conducted in 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. A second 

auction for the 800 MHz band was 

conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA 

licenses. One bidder claiming small 

business status won five licenses. 

41. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz 

SMR geographic area licenses for the 

General Category channels was 

conducted in 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 in 

2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area 

licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 

800 MHz SMR service were awarded. 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 

business. 

42. 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. One firm has 

over $15 million in revenues. In 

addition, we do not know how many of 

these firms have 1500 or fewer 

employees. 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 approved by the SBA. 

43. Cellular Radiotelephone Service. 

Auction 77 was held to resolve one 

group of mutually exclusive 

applications for Cellular Radiotelephone 

Service licenses for unserved areas in 

New Mexico. Bidding credits for 

designated entities were not available in 

Auction 77. In 2008, the Commission 

completed the closed auction of one 

unserved service area in the Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service, designated as 

Auction 77. Auction 77 concluded with 

one provisionally winning bid for the 

unserved area totaling $25,002. 

44. Private Land Mobile Radio 

(‘‘PLMR’’). PLMR systems serve an 

essential role in a range of industrial, 

business, land transportation, and 

public safety activities. These radios are 

used by companies of all sizes operating 

in all U.S. business categories, and are 

often used in support of the licensee’s 

primary (non-telecommunications) 

business operations. For the purpose of 

determining whether a licensee of a 

PLMR system is a small business as 

defined by the SBA, we use the broad 

census category, Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). This definition provides that 

a small entity is any such entity 

employing no more than 1,500 persons. 

The Commission does not require PLMR 

licensees to disclose information about 

number of employees, so the 

Commission does not have information 

that could be used to determine how 

many PLMR licensees constitute small 

entities under this definition. We note 

that PLMR licensees generally use the 

licensed facilities in support of other 

business activities, and therefore, it 

would also be helpful to assess PLMR 

licensees under the standards applied to 

the particular industry subsector to 

which the licensee belongs. 

45. As of March 2010, there were 

424,162 PLMR licensees operating 

921,909 transmitters in the PLMR bands 

below 512 MHz. We note that any entity 

engaged in a commercial activity is 

eligible to hold a PLMR license, and that 

any revised rules in this context could 

therefore potentially impact small 

entities covering a great variety of 

industries. 

46. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed 

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 created a size 

standard for a small business 

specifically with respect to fixed 

microwave services. For purposes of 

this analysis, the Commission uses the 

SBA small business size standard for the 

category Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite), which is 

1,500 or fewer employees. The 

Commission does not have data 

specifying the number of these licensees 

that have no more than 1,500 

employees, and thus are unable at this 

time to estimate with greater precision 

the number of fixed microwave service 

licensees that would qualify as small 

business concerns under the SBA’s 

small business size standard. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that there are 22,015 or fewer 

common carrier fixed licensees and 

61,670 or fewer private operationalfixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary 

radio licensees in the microwave 

services that may be small and may be 

affected by the rules and policies 

proposed herein. We note, however, that 

the common carrier microwave fixed 

licensee category includes some large 

entities. 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 26913 

47. 39 GHz Service. The Commission 

created a special small business size 

standard for 39 GHz licenses—an entity 

that has average gross revenues of $40 

million or less in the three previous 

calendar years. An additional size 

standard for ‘‘very small business’’ is: An 

entity that, together with affiliates, has 

average gross revenues of not more than 

$15 million for the preceding three 

calendar years. The SBA has approved 

these small business size standards. The 

auction of the 2,173, 39 GHz licenses, 

began and closed in 2000. The 18 

bidders who claimed small business 

status won 849 licenses. 

48. Local Multipoint Distribution 

Service. Local Multipoint Distribution 

Service (‘‘LMDS’’) is a fixed broadband 

point-to-multipoint microwave service 

that provides for two-way video 

telecommunications. The auction of the 

986 LMDS licenses began and closed in 

1998. The Commission established a 

small business size standard for LMDS 

licenses as an entity that has average 

gross revenues of less than $40 million 

in the three previous calendar years. An 

additional small business size standard 

for ‘‘very small business’’ was added as 

an entity that, together with its affiliates, 

has average gross revenues of not more 

than $15 million for the preceding three 

calendar years. The SBA has approved 

these small business size standards in 

the context of LMDS auctions. There 

were 93 winning bidders that qualified 

as small entities in the LMDS auctions. 

A total of 93 small and very small 

business bidders won approximately 

277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block 

licenses. In 1999, the Commission reauctioned 161 licenses; there were 32 

small and very small businesses 

winning that won 119 licenses. 

49. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The 

Commission has not adopted a size 

standard for small businesses specific to 

the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A 

significant subset of the Rural 

Radiotelephone Service is the Basic 

Exchange Telephone Radio System 

(‘‘BETRS’’). In the present context, we 

will use the SBA’s small business size 

standard applicable to Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), i.e., an entity employing no 

more than 1,500 persons. There are 

approximately 1,000 licensees in the 

Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the 

Commission estimates that there are 

1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in 

the Rural Radiotelephone Service that 

may be affected by the rules and 

policies proposed herein. 

50. 1.4 GHz Band Licensees. The 

Commission conducted an auction of 64 

1.4 GHz band licenses in 2007. In that 

auction, the Commission defined ‘‘small 

business’’ as an entity that, together with 

its affiliates and controlling interests, 

had average gross revenues that exceed 

$15 million but do not exceed $40 

million for the preceding three years, 

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

that, together with its affiliates and 

controlling interests, has had average 

annual gross revenues not exceeding 

$15 million for the preceding three 

years. Neither of the two winning 

bidders sought designated entity status. 

51. Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees. This 

analysis may affect incumbent licensees 

who were relocated to the 24 GHz band 

from the 18 GHz band, and applicants 

who wish to provide services in the 24 

GHz band. The applicable SBA small 

business size standard is that of 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite). This category 

provides that such a company is small 

if it employs no more than 1,500 

persons. The broader census data 

notwithstanding, we believe that there 

are only two licensees in the 24 GHz 

band that were relocated from the 18 

GHz band, Teligent and TRW, Inc. It is 

our understanding that Teligent and its 

related companies have fewer than 

1,500 employees, though this may 

change in the future. TRW is not a small 

entity. There are approximately 122 

licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone 

Service, and the Commission estimates 

that there are 122 or fewer small entity 

licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone 

Service that may be affected by the rules 

and policies proposed herein. 

52. Future 24 GHz Licensees. With 

respect to new applicants in the 24 GHz 

band, we have defined ‘‘small business’’ 

as an entity that, together with 

controlling interests and affiliates, has 

average annual gross revenues for the 

three preceding years not exceeding $15 

million. ‘‘Very small business’’ in the 24 

GHz band is defined as an entity that, 

together with controlling interests and 

affiliates, has average gross revenues not 

exceeding $3 million for the preceding 

three years. The SBA has approved 

these definitions. The Commission will 

not know how many licensees will be 

small or very small businesses until the 

auction, if required, is held. 

53. Broadband Radio Service and 

Educational Broadband Service. 

Broadband Radio Service systems, 

previously referred to as Multipoint 

Distribution Service (‘‘MDS’’) and 

Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 

Service (‘‘MMDS’’) systems, and 

‘‘wireless cable,’’ transmit video 

programming to subscribers and provide 

two-way high speed data operations 

using the microwave frequencies of the 

Broadband Radio Service (‘‘BRS’’) and 

Educational Broadband Service (‘‘EBS’’) 

(previously referred to as the 

Instructional Television Fixed Service 

(‘‘ITFS’’)). In connection with the 1996 

BRS auction, the Commission 

established a small business size 

standard as an entity that had annual 

average gross revenues of no more than 

$40 million in the previous three 

calendar years. The BRS auctions 

resulted in 67 successful bidders 

obtaining licensing opportunities for 

493 Basic Trading Areas (‘‘BTAs’’). Of 

the 67 auction winners, 61 met the 

definition of a small business. BRS also 

includes licensees of stations authorized 

prior to the auction. At this time, we 

estimate that of the 61 small business 

BRS auction winners, 48 remain small 

business licensees. In addition to the 48 

small businesses that hold BTA 

authorizations, there are approximately 

392 incumbent BRS licensees that are 

considered small entities. After adding 

the number of small business auction 

licensees to the number of incumbent 

licensees not already counted, we find 

that there are currently approximately 

440 BRS licensees that are defined as 

small businesses under either the SBA 

or the Commission’s rules. In 2009, the 

Commission conducted Auction 86, the 

sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The 

Commission offered three levels of 

bidding credits: (i) A bidder with 

attributed average annual gross revenues 

that exceed $15 million and do not 

exceed $40 million for the preceding 

three years (small business) will receive 

a 15 percent discount on its winning 

bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average 

annual gross revenues that exceed $3 

million and do not exceed $15 million 

for the preceding three years (very small 

business) will receive a 25 percent 

discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a 

bidder with attributed average annual 

gross revenues that do not exceed $3 

million for the preceding three years 

(entrepreneur) will receive a 35 percent 

discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 

concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 

licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, 

two bidders that claimed small business 

status won 4 licenses; one bidder that 

claimed very small business status won 

three licenses; and two bidders that 

claimed entrepreneur status won six 

licenses. 

54. In addition, the SBA’s Cable 

Television Distribution Services small 

business size standard is applicable to 

EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS 

licensees. All but 100 of these licenses 

are held by educational institutions. 

Educational institutions are included in 

this analysis as small entities. Thus, we 

estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are 

small businesses. Since 2007, Cable 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
26914 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Television Distribution Services have 

been defined within the broad economic 

census category of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers; that 

category is defined as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for this 

category, which is: All such firms 

having 1,500 or fewer employees. To 

gauge small business prevalence for 

these cable services we must, however, 

use current census data that are based 

on the previous category of Cable and 

Other Program Distribution and its 

associated size standard; that size 

standard was: All such firms having 

$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms 

in this previous category that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 

firms had annual receipts of under $10 

million, and 43 firms had receipts of 

$10 million or more but less than $25 

million. Thus, the majority of these 

firms can be considered small. 

55. Cable Television Distribution 

Services. Since 2007, these services 

have been defined within the broad 

economic census category of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers; that 

category is defined as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for this 

category, which is: All such firms 

having 1,500 or fewer employees. To 

gauge small business prevalence for 

these cable services we must, however, 

use current census data that are based 

on the previous category of Cable and 

Other Program Distribution and its 

associated size standard; that size 

standard was: All such firms having 

$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms 

in this previous category that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 

firms had annual receipts of under $10 

million, and 43 firms had receipts of 

$10 million or more but less than $25 

million. Thus, the majority of these 

firms can be considered small. 

56. Cable Companies and Systems. 

The Commission has also developed its 

own small business size standards, for 

the purpose of cable rate regulation. 

Under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small 

cable company’’ is one serving 400,000 

or fewer subscribers, nationwide. 

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 

cable operators nationwide, all but 

eleven are small under this size 

standard. In addition, under the 

Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is 

a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 

subscribers. Industry data indicate that, 

of 6,635 systems nationwide, 5,802 

systems have under 10,000 subscribers, 

and an additional 302 systems have 

10,000–19,999 subscribers. Thus, under 

this second size standard, most cable 

systems are small. 

57. Cable System Operators. The 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, also contains a size standard 

for small cable system operators, which 

is ‘‘a cable operator that, directly or 

through an affiliate, serves in the 

aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 

subscribers in the United States and is 

not affiliated with any entity or entities 

whose gross annual revenues in the 

aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ The 

Commission has determined that an 

operator serving fewer than 677,000 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator, if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 

cable operators nationwide, all but ten 

are small under this size standard. We 

note that the Commission neither 

requests nor collects information on 

whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million, 

and therefore we are unable to estimate 

more accurately the number of cable 

system operators that would qualify as 

small under this size standard. 

58. Open Video Systems. The open 

video system (‘‘OVS’’) framework was 

established in 1996, and is one of four 

statutorily recognized options for the 

provision of video programming 

services by local exchange carriers. The 

OVS framework provides opportunities 

for the distribution of video 

programming other than through cable 

systems. Because OVS operators provide 

subscription services, OVS falls within 

the SBA small business size standard 

covering cable services, which is ‘‘Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers.’’ The SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard for this category, which is: All 

such firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees. To gauge small business 

prevalence for such services we must, 

however, use current census data that 

are based on the previous category of 

Cable and Other Program Distribution 

and its associated size standard; that 

size standard was: All such firms having 

$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms 

in this previous category that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 

firms had annual receipts of under $10 

million, and 43 firms had receipts of 

$10 million or more but less than $25 

million. Thus, the majority of cable 

firms can be considered small. In 

addition, we note that the Commission 

has certified some OVS operators, with 

some now providing service. Broadband 

service providers (‘‘BSPs’’) are currently 

the only significant holders of OVS 

certifications or local OVS franchises. 

The Commission does not have 

financial or employment information 

regarding the entities authorized to 

provide OVS, some of which may not 

yet be operational. Thus, again, at least 

some of the OVS operators may qualify 

as small entities. 

59. Cable Television Relay Service. 

This service includes transmitters 

generally used to relay cable 

programming within cable television 

system distribution systems. This cable 

service is defined within the broad 

economic census category of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers; that 

category is defined as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for this 

category, which is: All such firms 

having 1,500 or fewer employees. To 

gauge small business prevalence for 

cable services we must, however, use 

current census data that are based on 

the previous category of Cable and 

Other Program Distribution and its 

associated size standard; that size 

standard was: All such firms having 

$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms 

in this previous category that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 

firms had annual receipts of under $10 

million, and 43 firms had receipts of 

$10 million or more but less than $25 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 26915 

million. Thus, the majority of these 

firms can be considered small. 

60. Multichannel Video Distribution 

and Data Service. MVDDS is a terrestrial 

fixed microwave service operating in 

the 12.2–12.7 GHz band. The 

Commission adopted criteria for 

defining three groups of small 

businesses for purposes of determining 

their eligibility for special provisions 

such as bidding credits. It defined a very 

small business as an entity with average 

annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 

million for the preceding three years; a 

small business as an entity with average 

annual gross revenues not exceeding 

$15 million for the preceding three 

years; and an entrepreneur as an entity 

with average annual gross revenues not 

exceeding $40 million for the preceding 

three years. These definitions were 

approved by the SBA. On January 27, 

2004, the Commission completed an 

auction of 214 MVDDS licenses 

(Auction No. 53). In this auction, ten 

winning bidders won a total of 192 

MVDDS licenses. Eight of the ten 

winning bidders claimed small business 

status and won 144 of the licenses. The 

Commission also held an auction of 

MVDDS licenses on December 7, 2005 

(Auction 63). Of the three winning 

bidders who won 22 licenses, two 

winning bidders, winning 21 of the 

licenses, claimed small business status. 

61. Internet Service Providers. The 

2007 Economic Census places these 

firms, whose services might include 

voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), in 

either of two categories, depending on 

whether the service is provided over the 

provider’s own telecommunications 

connections (e.g. cable and DSL, ISPs), 

or over client-supplied 

telecommunications connections (e.g. 

dial-up ISPs). The former are within the 

category of Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers, which has an SBA small 

business size standard of 1,500 or fewer 

employees. The latter are within the 

category of All Other 

Telecommunications, which has a size 

standard of annual receipts of $25 

million or less. The most current Census 

Bureau data for all such firms, however, 

are the 2002 data for the previous 

census category called Internet Service 

Providers. That category had a small 

business size standard of $21 million or 

less in annual receipts, which was 

revised in late 2005 to $23 million. The 

2002 data show that there were 2,529 

such firms that operated for the entire 

year. Of those, 2,437 firms had annual 

receipts of under $10 million, and an 

additional 47 firms had receipts of 

between $10 million and $24,999,999. 

Consequently, we estimate that the 

majority of ISP firms are small entities. 

62. The ISP industry has changed 

dramatically since 2002. The 2002 data 

cited above may therefore include 

entities that no longer provide Internet 

access service and may exclude entities 

that now provide such service. To 

ensure that this IRFA describes the 

universe of small entities that our action 

might affect, we discuss in turn several 

different types of entities that might be 

providing Internet access service. 

63. We note that, although we have no 

specific information on the number of 

small entities that provide Internet 

access service over unlicensed 

spectrum, we include these entities in 

our IRFA. 

4. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

64. As discussed above, the NPRM 

seeks comment on a number of specific 

reforms to contain the growth in the 

legacy high-cost support mechanisms 

and identify savings that can be shifted 

toward broadband. Under the 

Commission’s current rules, eligible 

telecommunications carriers (ETCs) file 

certain information with the 

Commission, the Universal Service 

Administrative Company (USAC), and/ 

or the National Carrier Exchange 

Association (NECA) that is used to 

determine the amount of high-cost 

support each ETC receives. The 

proposals in the NPRM to cap or 

eliminate support, if eventually 

adopted, are not likely to substantially 

change the current reporting, 

recordkeeping, and compliance 

requirements, and would, in some cases, 

reduce such burdens. The proposal to 

shift rate-of-return carriers to incentive 

regulation likely would result in certain 

one-time reporting requirements related 

to the conversion, such as establishing 

initial price cap indexes for price cap 

baskets. In addition, some ongoing 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements may change 

after the conversion from rate-of-return 

regulation, but may result in less 

burdensome requirements, in some 

cases. We do not have an estimate of 

potential reporting, recordkeeping, and 

compliance burdens, because it is too 

speculative at this time to anticipate the 

number of carriers that would be 

required to convert to incentive 

regulation, or what type of incentive 

regulation would be required. We 

anticipate that commenters will provide 

the Commission with reliable 

information on any costs and burdens 

on small entities. 

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

65. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

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. 

66. As discussed above, the NPRM 

seeks comment on capping legacy highcost support provided to incumbent 

telephone companies; shifting rate-ofreturn carriers to incentive regulation 

and converting interstate common line 

support to a frozen amount per line; 

eliminating interstate access support; 

and eliminating high-cost support for 

competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers. The NPRM 

seeks comment generally on the 

proposed universal service reforms and 

carriers’ rates under the Commission’s 

current pricing rules, and specifically 

seeks comment on whether there are 

special considerations resulting from 

the operation of the NECA pool that 

would unfairly advantage or 

disadvantage certain carriers. The 

NPRM also seeks comment on the costs 

and benefits that would be realized by 

converting all rate-of-return carriers to 

price cap or other incentive regulation. 

We anticipate that the record will reflect 

whether the overall benefits of such a 

requirement would outweigh the 

burdens on small entities, and if so, 

suggest alternative ways in which the 

Commission could lessen the overall 

burdens on small entities. We encourage 

small entity comment. 

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

67. None. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

68. This document discusses potential 

new or revised information collection 

requirements. The reporting 

requirements, if any, that might be 

adopted pursuant to this NPRM are too 

speculative at this time to request 

comment from the OMB or interested 

parties under section 3507(d) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, if 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
26916 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the Commission determines that 

reporting is required, it will seek 

comment from the OMB and interested 

parties prior to any such requirements 

taking effect. In addition, pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, we will seek specific 

comment on how we might ‘‘further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees.’’ Nevertheless, 

interested parties are encouraged to 

comment on whether any new or 

revised information collection is 

necessary, and if so, how the 

Commission might minimize the burden 

of any such collection. 

C. Ex Parte Presentations 

69. These matters shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11321 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 24 

[FAR Case 2009–004; Docket 2010–0089, 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 9000–AL59 

Federal Acquisition Regulation: FAR 

Case 2009–004, Enhancing Contract 

Transparency 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) are seeking information that 

will assist in determining how best to 

amend the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) to enable public 

posting of contract actions, should such 

posting become a requirement in the 

future, without compromising 

contractors’ proprietary and confidential 

commercial or financial information. 

This transparency effort is intended to 

promote efficiency in Government 

contracting through an open acquisition 

process and improve Federal spending 

accountability consistent with the 

Administration’s memorandum entitled 

Transparency and Open Government 

(January 21, 2009) (Published in the 

Federal Register at 74 FR 4685, January 

26, 2009). 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat at the address shown below 

on or before July 12, 2010 to be 

considered in the formation of a 

proposed rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FAR Case 2009–004, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

inputting ‘‘FAR Case 2009–004’’ under 

the heading ‘‘Comment or Submission.’’ 

Select the link ‘‘Send a Comment or 

Submission’’ that corresponds with FAR 

Case 2009–004. Follow the instructions 

provided to complete the ‘‘Public 

Comment and Submission Form.’’ Please 

include your name, company name (if 

any), and ‘‘FAR Case 2009–004’’ on your 

attached document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, FAR Secretariat 

(MVCB), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 

4041, Attn: Hada Flowers, Washington, 

DC 20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR Case 2009–004 in all 

correspondence related to this case. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Michael Jackson, Procurement Analyst, 

at (202) 208–4949 for clarification of 

content. The FAR Secretariat at (202) 

501–4755 for information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules. Please 

cite FAR case 2009–004. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Councils anticipate that, in the 

future, a requirement to post on-line the 

text of contracts and task and delivery 

orders will be instituted. See generally 

Presidential Memorandum entitled 

Freedom of Information Act (January 21, 

2009) (Published in the Federal Register 

at 74 FR 4683, January 26, 2009); 

Presidential Memorandum entitled 

Transparency and Open Government 

(January 21, 2009) (Published in the 

Federal Register at 74 FR 4685, January 

26, 2009); Attorney General 

Memorandum entitled Freedom of 

Information Act (March 19, 2009); 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Notice, Transparency and Open 

Government (Published in the Federal 

Register at 74 FR 23901, May 21, 2009); 

OMB memorandum entitled Open 

Government Directive (M–10–06, 

December 8, 2009). In support of this 

anticipated requirement, the Councils 

are considering how best to revise the 

FAR to facilitate such posting without 

violating statutory and regulatory 

prohibitions against disclosing 

protected information belonging to the 

Government or contractors. 

The Councils are particularly 

interested in suggestions that will 

facilitate uniform, consistent processing 

methods that are fair and equitable as 

well as cost effective and efficient, 

while at the same time simplifying 

access to acquisitions once posted. The 

Councils are mindful of the need to 

protect the Government’s classified 

information in accordance with the 

National Industrial Security Program 

Operating Manual (NISPOM) (DoD 

5220.22–M) and the Industrial Security 

Regulation (DoD 5220.22–R) (see FAR 

Subpart 4.4) and the protections 

afforded contractor information under 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

(5 U.S.C. 552) procedures (see FAR 

Subpart 24.2 and E.O. 12600). The 

Councils are also mindful of the FAR 

section which already addresses the 

marking of contractor information (see 

FAR 3.104–4). 

It may not be practical to apply FOIA 

procedures before posting in every case. 

The Councils are looking into methods 

for identifying the types of information 

that should not be posted or released to 

the public, as well as means for 

electronic processing and posting, and 

development of provision or clause 

requirements for successful offerors to 

provide a redacted copy of the contract. 

The Councils are also requesting 

suggestions for how best to protect the 

types of information through redacting, 

locating all such information in a 

standard place in the contract, or other 

possible methods to be considered. 

Respondents are encouraged to 

address the benefits of this transparency 

effort as well as possible impacts on 

offerors’ and the Government’s business 

systems, dollar thresholds for 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS