Provision of Roaming Services by Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[CC Docket No. 94-54: FCC 96-284]

Provision of Roaming Services by Commercial Mobile Radio Service

Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission adopts a Second Report and Order and Third

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the offering of roaming

services by commercial mobile radio service providers. The Second

Report and Order portion of this decision is summarized elsewhere in

this issue of the Federal Register. The Third Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (Third NPRM) seeks comment on whether the Commission should

adopt rules governing cellular, broadband personal communications

services and certain specialized mobile radio (covered SMR)

[[Page 44027]]

carriers' obligations to provide automatic roaming service, and on a

range of related issues. The action is taken to promote competition in

commercial mobile radio services, thus securing lower prices and high

quality services for consumers while encouraging the rapid deployment

of new telecommunications technologies.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 4, 1996, and reply

comments are due on or before November 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Steinberg, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Third Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking segment of the Second Report and Order and Third

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 94-54, FCC 96-284,

adopted June 27, 1996, and released August 13, 1996. The Second Report

and Order portion of this decision is summarized elsewhere in this

edition of the Federal Register. The complete text of this decision is

available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in

the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,

International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street,

NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1. In this Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third NPRM), the

Commission continues its examination of issues concerning the offering

of roaming services by commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)

providers. ``Roaming'' occurs when the subscriber of one CMRS provider

utilizes the facilities of another CMRS provider with which the

subscriber has no direct pre-existing service or financial relationship

to place an outgoing call, to receive an incoming call, or to continue

an in-progress call. Typically, although not always, roaming occurs

when the subscriber is physically located outside the service area of

the provider to which he or she subscribes. Under Sec. 22.901 of the

Commission's rules, cellular system licensees ``must provide cellular

mobile radiotelephone service upon request to all cellular subscribers

in good standing, including roamers, while such subscribers are located

within any portion of the authorized cellular geographic service area *

* * where facilities have been constructed and service to subscribers

has commenced.''

2. Roaming service can be provided through a variety of technical

and contractual arrangements. The most rudimentary form of roaming is

manual roaming. Manual roaming is the only form of roaming that is

available when there is no pre-existing contractual relationship

between a subscriber, or her home system, and the system on which she

wants to roam. In order to make or receive a call, a manual roamer must

establish such a relationship. Automatic roaming, by contrast, means

that the roaming subscriber is able to originate or terminate a call

without taking any action other than turning on her telephone. This

form of roaming requires a contractual agreement between the home and

roamed-on systems.

3. This proceeding was initiated in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

and Notice of Inquiry, which may be found at 59 FR 35664, July 13,

1994. A Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second NPRM) concerning

roaming was released more than one year ago (60 FR 20949, April 28,

1995). At that point, the Commission's initial broadband PCS auctions

had just been conducted and licenses were not yet issued. The business

plans of companies entering the market for broadband PCS services were

in their formative stages. No dual band or dual mode phones were yet

available, and no broadband PCS provider had experience trying to

negotiate a roaming agreement. The comments received in response to the

Second NPRM largely reflected the nascent nature of the market's

development. Based on this record, the Commission promulgated rules

governing manual roaming in the Second Report and Order, which is

summarized elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. However,

the record yielded by these comments was inconclusive with respect to

automatic roaming issues.

4. The record established by the comments submitted to date, while

not providing a basis for the Commission to adopt automatic roaming

rules, does persuade the Commission of the need to seek up-to-date

information on events of the past year concerning automatic roaming

issues. In general, the record raises the question whether, during the

broadband PCS buildout period, market conditions may create economic

incentives for certain CMRS carriers to discriminate unreasonably in

the provision of roaming, or to otherwise engage in unjust or

unreasonable practices with regard to roaming. Given the importance

that the Commission attaches to ensuring the widespread availability of

roaming, and the inconclusiveness of the current record, the Commission

requests additional comment on whether it would serve the public

interest to adopt rules governing the provision of automatic roaming

service by CMRS providers to other CMRS providers.

5. The Commission's consideration of automatic roaming issues is

framed by three general questions. First, is there a need for

Commission action? Second, if the Commission is persuaded that

regulation would serve the public interest, what specific action should

be taken? Third, what are the disadvantages of such action, especially

as to network costs and additional burdens on providers, particularly

smaller providers?

6. Commenters disagree on whether incumbent CMRS providers have the

market power and the economic incentive to deny roaming agreements to

new entrants. The Commission requests comment on this issue, and also

on whether the geographic scope of broadband PCS licenses may reduce

the importance of roaming to ensuring the ability of PCS providers to

compete. Most roaming appears to occur in adjacent markets. The

relatively limited geographic scope of cellular service areas prompted

cellular carriers to compete for customers based on the extent of their

roaming networks and their roaming rates and features. In contrast,

broadband PCS license areas are significantly larger than cellular.

Accordingly, broadband PCS customers can go much further distances

without roaming. This raises the question of whether broadband PCS

providers need to be able to offer automatic roaming arrangements in

order to be able to compete.

7. In order to determine whether incumbent wireless providers have

an incentive to, and will, deny roaming agreements to other providers,

the Commission seeks evidence of the denial of such agreements, or

unreasonable discrimination in the provision of agreements.

Additionally, comment is requested on the likelihood of discrimination

among wireless carriers belonging to partnerships, joint ventures, and

other alliances among cellular carriers. The Commission further seeks

comment on whether the geographic extent of a carrier's license

holdings (in particular, carriers whose cellular and/or PCS holdings

give them essentially nationwide, facilities-based operating

``footprints'') affects its incentive to enter into roaming agreements

with smaller competitors in a way that merits a roaming

[[Page 44028]]

requirement. The Commission seeks comment, too, on whether requiring

carriers to enter into roaming agreements will affect the value of

these carriers' nationwide footprints.

8. The Commission next seeks comment on whether new entrants

currently have viable options to obtain automatic roaming if incumbent

cellular providers unreasonably deny such agreements. The Commission

notes that although the deployment of multiple CMRS networks will, in

the long run, increase the number of parties with which roaming

agreements can be obtained in any area, such networks will not be

widely available during the construction period of broadband PCS. The

Commission solicits comment on the timing of such construction period.

AT&T argues that, to the extent this is a problem at all, a PCS carrier

can obtain roaming service during the buildout period in any market by

entering into a contractual agreement with a cellular carrier that

already possesses a roaming agreement in that market. The Commission

seeks comment on whether AT&T's proposal for new entrants to

``piggyback'' on existing roaming arrangements is a reasonable means

for carriers to obtain roaming capability.

9. To the extent that a basis for Commission action on automatic

roaming is established, comment is invited on what the nature of that

action should be. The Commission requests comment on whether, as a

condition of license, it should require cellular, broadband PCS and

covered SMR providers which enter into roaming agreements with other

such providers to make like agreements available to similarly situated

providers, where technically compatible handsets are being used, under

nondiscriminatory rates, terms and conditions. The Commission clarifies

that such a rule would need to recognize that not all carriers are

similarly situated. Thus, such a rule need not require carriers to

offer roaming agreements to all other carriers on the same terms and

conditions, or even to offer roaming service to any carrier at all. The

Commission seeks comment on the question of whether a covered CMRS

provider that enters into a roaming agreement with another CMRS

provider, however, should be required to offer like roaming agreements

to other similarly situated providers upon reasonable request, without

unreasonably discriminating on rates, terms, and conditions. The

Commission seeks information and comment on the cost and burden of such

a requirement.

10. In response to suggestions raised in the comments, the

Commission asks whether a carrier should be able to offer a more

favorable rate to its affiliates. Similarly, the Commission seeks

comment on whether a carrier should be able to offer a lower rate to a

geographically proximate carrier. The Commission also seeks comment on

whether, as a general matter, it would serve the public interest to

require carriers to make roaming service available to other carriers

pursuant to one-way agreements under the same terms and conditions as

under reciprocal agreements. The Commission invites comment on whether

carriers should be permitted to refuse to enter into automatic roaming

agreements with other facilities-based carriers in their markets, and

on the advantages and disadvantages of a rule that would facilitate

such ``in-region'' roaming. Comment is further solicited on how in-

region roaming may affect carriers' incentives to build out their

networks. The Commission also seeks comment on how an exception that

permits carriers to deny roaming agreements to in-region competitors

could be administered, given the different geographic scope of

cellular, broadband PCS and covered SMR licenses and operations.

11. The Commission, in response to arguments that special rules are

necessary to protect the right of resellers to enter into roaming

agreements, does not propose to regulate the prices that carriers may

charge resellers (or anyone else) for roaming, other than perhaps to

prohibit discrimination in the prices charged to similarly situated

carriers. However, the Commission seeks comment on the additional costs

and burdens that may be imposed on facilities-based carriers if they

are required to separately enter into agreements with multiple

resellers. The Commission also seeks comment on what, if any, benefits

might be generated by enabling resellers to obtain roaming agreements.

12. One of the principal reasons for the Commission's tentative

conclusion in the Second NPRM to monitor the development of roaming,

rather than to propose rules at that time, was its concern that

technical factors might render compliance with rules unduly costly for

providers, or that its rules might inadvertently impede technological

progress. Based on the comments received, the Commission is not

persuaded that an automatic roaming rule would have such an effect

unless it required direct interconnection of networks for the

continuation of calls in progress. While handoff of calls in progress

is available at this time in some cellular markets, it is much less

widespread than originating and terminating access. More importantly,

the record does not indicate that broadband PCS or cellular providers

need to be able to obtain ``continuation of calls in progress'' roaming

capability in order to compete. For these reasons, the Commission does

not propose to require continuation of calls in progress. The

Commission seeks additional technical information on this subject, and

requests comment on this analysis.

13. Comment is also sought on whether and how rules governing

automatic roaming could be at odds with the Commission's general policy

of allowing market forces, rather than regulation, to shape the

development of wireless technologies. The Commission's goal would be to

make any rule it adopts consistent with such a policy. For example,

under such a rule, if systems used different technologies or operated

on different frequencies, the Commission believes the carrier seeking

to enable its subscribers to roam on another system would have the

burden of developing and implementing any technology necessary to

achieve that result. Furthermore, on the basis of the existing record,

the Commission believes any automatic roaming rule should be

sufficiently flexible to permit a carrier to change its technology for

legitimate business reasons without any obligation to make its system

accessible to roamers using different technologies, to the extent such

a technology change is otherwise permitted by the Commission's rules. A

carrier could not, however, introduce features into its system in order

to obstruct service to roamers from systems using otherwise compatible

technologies. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis.

14. Requiring non-discrimination in roaming agreements would,

theoretically, generate certain benefits. However, there also are

potential downsides to imposing an automatic roaming requirement.

First, imposing such a requirement is inconsistent with the

Commission's general policy of allowing market forces, rather than

regulation, to shape the development of wireless services. Similarly,

it could be viewed as at odds with Congress' goal in adopting the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 of creating a ``pro-competitive,

deregulatory national policy framework'' for the United States

telecommunications industry. Does the importance of roaming and the

potential for discrimination warrant a departure from the Commission's

general

[[Page 44029]]

competitive, deregulatory approach to wireless?

15. Second, cellular carriers compete vigorously on the basis of

their roaming services. If the Commission adopts an automatic roaming

non-discrimination requirement, will carriers still be able to

differentiate their roaming services? If they cannot, will this lessen

competition in the wireless market? Also, what impact will a roaming

requirement have on the development of new and improved roaming

features?

16. Third, the imposition of an automatic roaming requirement could

be costly and burdensome. There are currently approximately 1,400

cellular systems; the Commission anticipates that broadband PCS and

covered SMR providers, once licensed, will expand that number

appreciably. What network and administrative costs are associated with

entering into and maintaining roaming agreements among all such

carriers? Will carriers, particularly smaller carriers, be able to

absorb these costs or to recover them from their customers or other

carriers? In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that it is not

considering requiring carriers to upgrade their networks or implement

any technology solely to enable roamers on different frequencies or

with different air interface devices to complete calls on their

systems. Similarly, the Commission is not considering requiring

carriers to interconnect their networks to ensure that calls in

progress can continue.

17. Some commenters argue that a roaming requirement would unduly

expose CMRS providers to losses due to fraud, or that fraud cannot be

controlled without direct interconnection of switches. The Commission

seeks further comment on these arguments. The Commission notes that

cellular carriers have exercised various options to protect themselves

under the existing manual roaming rule, such as requiring manual

roamers to supply a valid credit card number. The Commission seeks

comment on whether similar protective measures would be available and

equally effective if an automatic roaming rule is adopted. The

Commission also seeks comment on whether carriers could include in

their agreements with other carriers provisions to suspend roaming

service in case of fraud, or other appropriate anti-fraud provisions,

so long as they do so on a nondiscriminatory basis, and whether a

particular carrier that poses an unusually high risk of fraud could for

that reason be differently treated with respect to the terms of a

roaming agreement.

18. Regarding establishment of a sunset period, the Commission

agrees with those who contend that roaming regulations should apply

only for a transitional period. The Commission believes that once

broadband PCS providers' buildout periods are completed, sufficient

wireless capacity will be available in the market and, as a result, any

roaming regulations, whether manual or automatic, likely will become

superfluous. The Commission further believes that, given the

availability of sufficient capacity, a carrier would not have either

the incentive or the ability to unreasonably deny manual roaming to an

individual subscriber, or to unreasonably refuse to enter into an

automatic roaming agreement with another CMRS provider, because some

other carrier in its service area would be willing to do so. The

Commission anticipates, due to its broadband PCS build-out

requirement,1 that the market for cellular, broadband PCS and

covered SMR services will be substantially competitive within five

years after the Commission completes the initial round of licensing

broadband PCS providers. The Commission therefore believes that any

action taken concerning automatic roaming should sunset five years

after award of the last group of initial licenses for currently

allocated broadband PCS spectrum. The Commission seeks comment on this

issue. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, for the same

reasons, the manual roaming rule adopted in the Second Report and Order

portion of this decision also should sunset at the expiration of this

five-year period. The Commission notes that this is the same sunset

period recently adopted for its resale rule, and that the commencement

of the five-year period will be announced by Public Notice.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See 47 CFR 24.203.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Finally, in order to provide automatic roaming and adequately

protect itself against fraud, a carrier would have to make arrangements

with a subscriber's home system to verify the validity of the

subscriber's account. The Second NPRM noted that such arrangements, as

well as other arrangements that may be necessary for subscribers to use

special features while roaming, may implicate concerns relating to

subscriber privacy and carrier control over proprietary information,

and it requested comment on these issues. Since that time, however,

Congress has amended the Communications Act by adding a new section

222, which generally prohibits a carrier that obtains proprietary

information from another carrier for purposes of providing a

telecommunications service from using that information for any other

purpose. The Commission tentatively concludes that the treatment of

roaming-related access to proprietary information is governed by

section 222.

Filing Procedures

20. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission's Rules,2 interested parties may file

comments on or before October 4, 1996, and reply comments on or before

November 22, 1996. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file

an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and

supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a

personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus eight

copies. You should send comments and reply comments to the Office of

the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

A copy of each filing also should be sent to International

Transcription Service (ITS), 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington,

DC 20037, (202) 857-3800, and to Rita McDonald, Federal Communications

Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), Policy Division,

2025 M Street, NW., Room 5202, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply

comments will be available for public inspection during regular

business hours in the Reference Center of the Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 239, Washington, DC 20054.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Parties are encouraged to submit comments and reply comments on

diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a

substitute for the formal filing requirements presented above. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit them to Rita McDonald of the WTB

Policy Division. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette

formatted in an IBM compatible form using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows

software. The diskette should be submitted in ``read only'' mode, and

should be clearly labelled with the party's name, the proceeding (CC

Docket No. 94-54), the type of pleading (comment or reply comment) and

the date of submission.

22. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking

proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the

Sunshine Agenda

[[Page 44030]]

period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's

Rules.3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

I. Reason for Action.

23. This Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third NPRM) requests

comment on whether the Commission should promulgate transitional

regulations governing certain commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)

providers' obligations to enter into ``automatic'' roaming agreements

with other carriers. The Commission determines that a further NPRM is

necessary because the existing record does not sufficiently illuminate

the costs and benefits of an automatic roaming rule. In particular, at

the time comments were filed no broadband PCS providers were in

operation, and most providers were only beginning to formulate their

business plans. Therefore, the record does not reflect the actual

experience of broadband PCS providers in attempting to negotiate

roaming agreements. Although some comments in the record suggest that

an automatic roaming rule may be necessary to ensure new entrants an

equal opportunity to compete, other commenters argue that established

providers do not have an incentive to deny automatic roaming agreements

or unreasonably discriminate against new entrants.

24. The Commission also requests comment on whether the manual

roaming rule adopted in the Second Report and Order portion of this

decision should sunset five years after the last group of initial

licenses for currently allotted broadband PCS spectrum is awarded.

Although the Commission expects that market forces will render a manual

roaming rule unnecessary once broadband PCS licensees have

substantially built out their networks, the existing record is

insufficiently developed to support a decision regarding the

advantages, disadvantages, and implications of sunsetting the manual

roaming rule.

II. Objectives of Proposed Rules.

25. The Commission's principal objective in this Third NPRM is to

obtain information on the costs and benefits of an automatic roaming

rule. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should

adopt a rule requiring providers that enter into roaming agreements

with any other provider to make like agreements available to similarly

situated providers under nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and

conditions. The Commission also seeks comment on the potential costs of

an automatic roaming rule, including whether such a rule would

inadvertently impede technological progress, whether it would interfere

with free and open competition, whether it would expose providers to

the risk of losses due to fraud, and what administrative costs would be

involved. The Commission seeks comment on how any rule should be

drafted to minimize such costs. An additional objective is to obtain

information on the advantages, disadvantages, and implications of

sunsetting the manual roaming rule.

III. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules.

26. If adopted, any changes to the Commission's roaming rules would

be authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 303(r), 309, 332,

and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC 151,

154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 303(r), 309, 332, 403.

IV. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Subject to the Rules.

27. Pursuant to the Contract with America Advancement Act of

1996,4 the Commission is required to estimate in its Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the number of small entities to which a

rule will apply, provide a description of such entities, and assess the

impact of the rule on such entities. To assist the Commission in this

analysis, commenters are requested to provide information regarding how

many total CMRS entities would be affected by the regulations on which

the Commission seeks comment in this Third NPRM. In particular, the

Commission seeks estimates of how many affected entities will be

considered small businesses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

28. The regulations on which the Commission seeks comment, if

adopted, would apply to providers of cellular, broadband PCS, and

geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz specialized mobile radio services,

including licensees who have extended implementation authorizations in

the 800 MHz or 900 MHz SMR services, either by waiver or under

Sec. 90.629 of the Commission's rules. However, the rules would apply

to SMR licensees only if they offer real-time, two-way voice service

that is interconnected with the public switched network.

29. As explained in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

included in the full text of this Second Report and Order and Third

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, there are different definitions of

``small business'' for the various services affected by this

proceeding. Since the Commission has not defined small business with

respect to cellular service, we are utilizing the Small Business

Administration's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies--

i.e., an entity employing fewer than 1,500 persons.5 With respect

to broadband PCS, the Commission has refined the definition of a small

business to mean firms that have had average gross revenues of not more

than $40 million in the preceding three calendar years.6 With

respect to 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR services, the Commission has defined

small businesses as firms that have had average gross revenues of not

more than $15 million in the preceding three calendar years.7

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 13 CFR Sec. 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification Code

4812.

\6\ See 47 CFR Sec. 24.720(b).

\7\ See 47 CFR Sec. 90.814(b)(1).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. The Commission seeks comment as to whether our use of these

definitions is appropriate in this context. Additionally, we request

commenters to identify whether they are small businesses under these

definitions. For commenters that are a subsidiary of another entity, we

seek this information for both the subsidiary and the parent

corporation or entity.

V. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements.

31. The proposals under consideration in this Third NPRM would not

involve any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The only likely

compliance requirement would be to refrain from prohibited

discrimination in offering roaming agreements to other carriers. If a

sunset of the manual roaming rule is adopted, the effect would be to

relieve affected providers from compliance requirements after the

sunset takes effect.

VI. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected.

32. The Commission considered and rejected the alternative of

adopting an automatic roaming rule without further comment because it

concluded that the record before it did not establish that an automatic

roaming rule is necessary, and did not sufficiently develop the costs

of any such rule. At the same time, the Commission rejected the

alternative of declining to adopt an automatic roaming rule without

further inquiry. Some commenters made cogent arguments that established

providers might have the ability and incentive to disadvantage their

competitors by

[[Page 44031]]

denying them nondiscriminatory roaming agreements, and the Commission

believed these arguments should be further explored in light of ongoing

developments.

33. The Commission did determine, however, that certain forms of

regulation should not be proposed in the Third NPRM. In particular, the

Commission rejected any proposal that would require carriers to adopt

particular technology or modify their networks so as to offer roaming

arrangements to any provider. Similarly, the Commission determined not

to propose regulation of agreements between carriers to hand off calls

in progress because the record indicated that such arrangements may be

technically and administratively complex and because there was no

evidence that access to such arrangements is important to providers'

ability to compete. The Commission also rejected any alternative that

would require carriers to do more than refrain from discrimination

among similarly situated providers. Thus, the Commission does not

propose to require carriers to offer roaming agreements under any

particular terms and conditions, or even to offer roaming service to

any carrier at all.

34. In addition, the Commission rejected the alternative of

proposing to apply any automatic roaming rule to CMRS providers other

than cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR carriers because the

record did not establish that ubiquitous roaming capability is

important to the competitive success or utility of these services. The

Commission also rejected the alternative of proposing to continue any

automatic roaming rule indefinitely because it believes that any

necessity that may now exist for such a rule would be obviated once

broadband PCS networks are substantially built out. With respect to

manual roaming, the Commission requests comment on a sunset for similar

reasons, but it rejected the alternative of imposing a sunset at this

time because the existing record does not develop the implications of

such a sunset.

VII. Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with These

Proposed Rules.

35. None.

VIII. IRFA Comments

36. The Commission requests written public comment on the foregoing

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). Comments must have a

separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA

and must be filed by the deadlines specified in paragraph 37 of the

Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

Communications common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96-21796 Filed 8-26-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P