Implementation of the Rate Integration Requirement of the Communications Act

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96-61; FCC 99-43]

Implementation of the Rate Integration Requirement of the

Communications Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

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

SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), the Commission

seeks further comment on the application of rate integration to

interstate, interexchange services offered by commercial mobile radio

service (CMRS) providers. Specifically, the Commission invites

interested parties to comment on how rate integration should be applied

to wide-area calling plans, services offered by affiliates, plans that

assess local airtime or roaming charges in addition to separate long-

distance charges for interstate, interexchange services, and whether

cellular and PCS service rates should be integrated.

DATES: Comments are due on, or before, May 27, 1999. Reply comments are

due on, or before, June 28, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th

Street S.W., Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Wolfe, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-2191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the matter of Implementation

of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, CC

Docket No.96-61, adopted March 8, 1999, and released April 21, 1999.

The complete text of this Notice is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference

Center, room CY-A257, 445 12th Street S.W., Washington, DC. The Notice

is available through the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/

Common__Carrier/notices/1999/fcc99043.wp. The complete text may be

purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), at 1231 20th Street N.W.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

I. Introduction

1. In this Notice, we seek further comment on several issues

regarding the application of rate integration under section 254(g) of

the Communications Act to the interstate, interexchange services

offered by commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers.

II. Applicability of Rate Integration to CMRS Services

A. Wide-Area Calling Plans

2. Many CMRS providers have created calling plans that allow

customers to extend the size of the calling area in which they do not

incur roaming or separate long-distance charges, generically referred

to as wide-area calling plans. Under these types of plans, the customer

generally is assessed a monthly fee and obtains a specified number of

airtime minutes as part of the monthly charge. In this section, we seek

comment on: (1) whether there are wide-area calling plans or other

types of plans that should not be subject to rate integration; (2) what

limitations would rate integration requirements place on CMRS

providers' plans; and, (3) whether we should forbear from rate

integration requirements for some, or all, wide-area plans.

3. Wide-area calling plans appear to offer customers significant

benefits in the form of a simplified rate structure and additional

choice. We believe that the analysis of wide-area calling plans begins

with an examination of what constitutes an interexchange service, which

is not defined in the Act. Some parties argue that the meaning of

interexchange service should be derived from the definition of

``telephone toll service.'' Telephone toll service is defined as

``telephone service between stations in different exchange areas for

which a charge is not included in contracts with subscribers for

exchange service.'' 47 U.S.C. 153(48). Some CMRS providers assert that

because CMRS providers are not rate regulated, CMRS providers can

establish any area they choose as the ``exchange'' area. Under this

approach, an interexchange call exists only if a separate charge is

assessed for the interexchange call. The definition of ``telephone toll

service'' depends, in part, on the definition of ``exchange services.''

``Telephone exchange service'' is defined as ``service within a

telephone exchange, or within a connected system of telephone exchanges

within the same exchange area * * * and which is covered by the

exchange service charge, or * * * comparable service provided through a

system of switches, transmission equipment, or other facilities (or

combination thereof) by which a subscriber can originate and terminate

a telecommunications service.'' 47 U.S.C. 153(47). Cellular, broadband

PCS, and covered SMR providers have been found to provide ``comparable

service'' to telephone exchange service because, as a general matter,

local, two-way switched voice service is a principal part of the

service.

4. We invite parties to comment on how the definitions of

``telephone toll service'' and ``telephone exchange service,'' should

be applied in the CMRS context. We also seek comment on whether a

nationwide wide-area calling plan would be a telephone exchange service

pursuant to section 3(47) of the Act; whether the Commission should

define this term for rate integration purposes; or whether, as alleged

by some, the definition should be left to the discretion of CMRS

providers. Parties should discuss the competitive implications of the

alternative positions.

5. We invite parties to comment on alternative ways of implementing

rate integration in the wide-area calling plan context to foster

customer choice, pricing flexibility, and competitive development of

the industry. Specifically, what must a CMRS provider do in offering

wide-area plans to comply with rate integration requirements? To assist

us in this effort, we invite parties to document the types of wide-area

calling plans that are available, including the range of plans that

individual CMRS carriers offer. We are particularly interested in

[[Page 26928]]

comparisons between regional and nationwide plans. In addition, parties

should indicate whether these wide-area plans encompass Alaska, Hawaii,

and the U.S. territories and possessions. Parties are asked to discuss

whether the existence of a basic plan with separate interexchange

charges at integrated rates, or the availability of dial-around to

reach a long-distance carrier with integrated rates, would warrant

either minimal regulation of, or forbearance from regulating, wide-area

calling plans pursuant to section 254(g).

6. We also seek comment on how to evaluate multiple wide-area

calling plans offered by a CMRS provider. Are there criteria that could

be applied that would permit a variety of such plans to exist, while

still complying with the rate integration requirement? If a CMRS

provider offers wide-area calling plans, we invite parties to address

whether it should be required to offer at least one such plan that

serves all locations. Parties should comment on whether an approach

that prohibited special rate categories for calls to non-contiguous

insular points on a market-by-market basis, as suggested by PrimeCo,

would be sufficient to prevent discrimination. Parties should focus on

how any proposed approach to the treatment of wide-area calling plans

balances the objective of fostering competitive market conditions with

the goals of rate integration. Finally, we ask that parties discuss the

implications of each approach for other policies applicable to CMRS

providers.

7. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether forbearance from the

application of rate integration to wide-area calling plans is

appropriate. Parties are invited to comment on whether the conditions

in the CMRS market are such that the requirements of section 10 would

be satisfied. Finally, we seek comment on the extent to which the

continued applicability of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act is

sufficient to protect against discriminatory or unreasonable rates;

and, on the impact of specific proposals on small business entities,

including new entrants.

B. Affiliation Requirements

8. The Commission's rate integration policy has always required

rate integration across affiliates. We tentatively conclude that an

interpretation of section 254(g), consistent with this prior policy,

that requires rate integration across affiliates is also consistent

with the Congressional intent of section 254(g).

9. In the Rate Integration Reconsideration Order, we specified that

the current definitions of ``affiliate'' and ``control'' in section

32.9000 of the Commission's rules will be used to determine whether

companies are sufficiently related to require them to integrate their

rates. Thus, we required affiliates under common ownership and control

to integrate their rates. We observed that these definitions will

permit application of rate integration to closely related affiliates

while excluding those not under common control.

10. CMRS providers assert that the affiliation rule is unworkable

and could produce anticompetitive results. They state that CMRS

ownership arrangements are complicated, typically including partnership

arrangements among carriers that are often competitors in other

markets. Several CMRS providers assert that the current affiliation

requirement would force all related carriers to adopt identical rates

and rate structures, thereby preventing CMRS providers from responding

to competition and depriving customers of the benefits of pricing

flexibility and customer choice associated with the detariffed CMRS

environment.

11. A workable affiliation rule is essential to preclude CMRS

providers from evading the rate integration requirement of section

254(g) by the simple process of creating separate, affiliated companies

to serve different geographic areas. We recognize, however, that too

stringent an affiliation rule could be unworkable and adversely effect

pricing and customer choice, because of the complex nature of the CMRS

market. We invite parties to propose the appropriate affiliation

requirement. We request parties to address the following affiliation

standards: (1) fifty-one percent or greater ownership control; and (2)

eighty percent ownership control resulting in accounting on a

consolidated basis. Parties should discuss how positive or negative

control should affect the analysis. Parties also are asked to identify

CMRS providers serving Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories and

possessions that would be affected by different affiliation standards.

We invite parties to suggest other affiliation standards that they

believe are more workable. Finally, we seek comment on the nature of

the fiduciary duty owed by a controlling partner to its partners, how

that duty would be affected by application of the statutory

requirements of section 254(g), and how that duty should affect the

level of affiliation required to trigger rate integration requirements

in the CMRS industry.

12. We also seek comment on whether conditions in the CMRS market

warrant forbearance from application of the affiliation requirement

under section 10 of the Act. Parties should address how each element of

the forbearance standard is met. Finally, parties should address the

extent to which any affiliate standard they propose affects small

business entities, including new entrants.

C. Plans That Assess a Local Airtime or Roaming Charge Plus Separate

Long-Distance Charges for Interstate, Interexchange Services

13. In this section, we seek further comment on the effects of the

rate integration requirement of section 254(g) on the airtime or

roaming charges associated with interstate, interexchange calls for

which a separate long-distance charge is assessed. Airtime and roaming

charges may be viewed in one or more ways. For example, airtime and

roaming charges could be viewed as not interexchange in character and,

therefore, not subject to rate integration, if the charges do not vary

with the local or toll nature of the call. Alternatively, airtime and

roaming charges could be viewed as part of the price for the long-

distance call and, therefore, subject to the rate integration

requirement. We request comment on the legal and policy implications of

the alternatives described above. Parties also should discuss any

interrelationships with the definition of ``exchange'' and

``interexchange,'' discussed above in conjunction with the

consideration of wide-area calling plans.

14. The local airtime or roaming charge assessed for a purely local

call generally is the same as that assessed in connection with a toll

call. That charge may vary from calling area to calling area because of

differences in market conditions, just as exchange rates of incumbent

LECs may vary among exchanges. Traffic, which involves no interstate,

interexchange component, is not subject to rate integration. If airtime

and roaming charges are subjected to rate integration, CMRS providers

claim that they would be forced to assess the same airtime and roaming

charge in all locations. Several parties noted that such a requirement

could affect CMRS providers' ability to respond to competition or to

offer customers a variety of pricing options. We seek comment on the

ability of CMRS providers to impose separate, uniform airtime and

roaming charges when a call is an interstate, interexchange call. To

assist us in evaluating the implications of the application of rate

integration to airtime and roaming charges, parties should provide

detailed information on the percentage of calls and minutes that are

local in nature as opposed to the

[[Page 26929]]

percentage of calls and minutes that are toll.

15. CMRS providers state that airtime and roaming charges primarily

reflect local market conditions. They allege that costs do not vary as

widely as costs vary for exchange carriers, and that CMRS rates do not

include subsidies that support high exchange costs. We ask parties to

address the extent of any cost difference between the contiguous states

and Hawaii, Alaska, and the covered U.S. territories and possessions,

and to submit demonstrative evidence supporting their cost difference

data. Parties also should address the extent to which any options they

propose would affect small business entities, including new entrants.

16. Finally, we ask parties to comment on whether, if we determine

that airtime and roaming charges are properly part of an interstate,

interexchange call, we should forbear from applying the rate

integration requirement of section 254(g) to those airtime and roaming

charges. Parties urging forbearance should discuss the standards of

section 10 of the Act and how each element of the forbearance analysis

is met. Parties also should discuss the effect of the continued

applicability of sections 201, 202, and 208 on the forbearance

analysis. In particular, we ask parties to discuss the extent to which

those sections will protect consumers in a less than fully competitive

market.

D. Integration of Cellular and PCS Services

17. We invite parties to comment on whether the rates of cellular

and broadband PCS services should be integrated. Parties should discuss

any similarities or differences in the operation of cellular and PCS

networks, as well as customer perceptions of the two types of services.

Parties also are asked to suggest other similarities or differences

that should affect our decision as to whether cellular and PCS services

should be rate integrated. We invite parties to discuss the effect that

requiring these services to integrate their rates would have on the

intent, in part, that PCS service provide competition to cellular

service. In addition, we ask parties to comment on whether their

position differs if the CMRS provider uses an integrated cellular and

PCS network to provide a single CMRS service or if the CMRS provider

offers separate cellular and PCS services using distinct cellular and

PCS facilities. Finally, we invite parties to address the extent to

which a requirement to integrate the rates of cellular and PCS services

would affect small business entities, including new entrants.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

18. The Notice is a permit-but-disclose proceeding and is subject

to the permit-but-disclose requirements under 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as

revised. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that

memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain a summary of the

substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and

arguments presented is generally required. See also 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

19. The Notice has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and does not contain new or

modified information collections subject to Office of Management and

Budget review.

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of

the proposals suggested in this Notice. The analysis is set forth at

the end of this summary. Written public comments are requested on the

IRFA. Comments and reply comments must be identified by a separate and

distinct heading as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or

before May 27, 1999 and June 28, 1999, respectively. Parties should

address the extent to which our proposals affect large and small CMRS

providers differently and how small business entities, including new

entrants, will be affected. The Commission's Office of Public Affairs,

Reference Operations Division, will send a copy of this Notice,

including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration, in accordance with the RFA. In addition, the

Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal

Register.

D. Comment and Reply Comment Filing Dates and Procedures

21. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,

47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before

May 27, 1999, and reply comments on or before June 28, 1999. Comments

may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS) or by filing paper copies.

22. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic

file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Only

one copy of the electronic submission must be filed. In completing the

transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal

Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking

number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-

mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should

send an e-mail to [email protected], including ``get form '' in the body of the message. A sample form and directions

will be sent in reply.

23. Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and

four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the

Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth St., S.W., Room TW-A325,

Washington, DC 20554.

24. Parties that choose to file by paper should also submit their

comments on diskette. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch

diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1

for Windows or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied

by a cover letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The

diskette should be clearly labelled with the commenter's name,

proceeding (including the docket number in this case, CC Docket No. 96-

61); type of pleading (comment or reply comment); date of submission;

and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should

also include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each

diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a

single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette

copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.

IV. Ordering Clauses

25. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201-202,

254, 303(r) and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47

U.S.C. 151-154, 201-202, 254, 303(r) and 403, that notice is hereby

given of the rulemaking described above and that comment is sought on

these issues.

26. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public

Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis,

[[Page 26930]]

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

27. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared this

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible

significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules

proposed in this Notice. Written public comments are requested on this

IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be

filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided above. The

Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

28. In the 1996 Act, Congress directed the Commission to develop

rules implementing the provisions of section 254(g) within six months

of its enactment. The Commission adopted broad rules implementing the

provisions of section 254(g) in the Rate Integration Order. In the

Notice, we seek comment on how the rate integration requirement of

section 254(g) should be applied to certain interstate, interexchange

offerings of CMRS providers. The objective is to develop rate

integration policies for CMRS providers that address the conditions in

the CMRS marketplace, while fulfilling the rate integration objective

of section 254(g).

B. Legal Basis

29. The proposed action is authorized by 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-

202, 254, 303(r) and 403.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which

the Proposed Rules Will Apply

30. 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, 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 Small Business

Administration (SBA).

(a) Cellular Radio Telephone Service

31. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities

applicable to cellular licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition

of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to

radiotelephone companies. This definition provides that a small entity

is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons.

According to the 1992 Census, which is the most recent information

available, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such

firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.

Therefore, even if all 12 of these large firms were cellular telephone

companies, all of the remainder were small businesses under the SBA's

definition. Although there are 1,758 cellular licenses, we do not know

the number of cellular licensees, since a cellular licensee may own

several licenses. We assume that, for purposes of our evaluations in

this IRFA, all of the current cellular licensees are small entities, as

that term is defined by the SBA.

(b) Broadband Personal Communications Service

32. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks

designated A through F. Pursuant to section 24.720(b) of the

Commission's Rules, the Commission has defined ``small entity'' for

Block C and Block F licensees as firms that had average gross revenues

of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. This

regulation defining ``small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS

auctions has been approved by the SBA.

33. The Commission has auctioned broadband PCS licenses in all of

its spectrum blocks A through F. We do not have sufficient data to

determine how many small businesses under the Commission's definition

bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. As of now, there are

90 non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as small entities in the

Block C auction and 93 non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as

small entities in the D, E, and F Block auctions. Based on this

information, we conclude that the number of broadband PCS licensees

that would be affected by the proposals in this Notice includes the 183

non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as small entities in the C,

D, E, and F Block broadband PCS auctions.

(c) Specialized Mobile Radio

34. Pursuant to section 90.814(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, the

Commission has defined ``small entity'' for geographic area 800 MHz and

900 MHz SMR licenses as firms that had average gross revenues of no

more than $15 million in the three previous calendar years. This

regulation defining ``small entity'' in the context of 800 MHz and 900

MHz SMR has been approved by the SBA.

35. The proposals set forth in the Notice may apply to SMR

providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many

firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service, nor how

many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15

million.

36. The Commission recently held auctions for geographic area

licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. There were 60 winning bidders who

qualified as small entities under the Commission's definition in the

900 MHz auction. Based on this information, we conclude that the number

of geographic area SMR licensees affected by the proposals set forth in

this Notice includes these 60 small entities.

37. A total of 525 licenses were auctioned for the upper 200

channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. There were 62

qualifying bidders, of which 52 were small businesses. The Commission

has not yet determined how many licenses will be awarded for the lower

230 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. There is no

basis to estimate, moreover, how many small entities within the SBA's

definition will win these lower channel licenses. We assume that, for

purposes of our evaluations in this IRFA, all of the current

specialized mobile radio licensees are small entities, as that term is

defined by the SBA.

(d) 220 MHz Service

38. The Commission has classified providers of 220 MHz service into

Phase I and Phase II licensees. There are approximately 2,800 non-

nationwide Phase I licensees and 4 nationwide licensees currently

authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission recently

conducted the Phase II auction. There were 54 qualified bidders, of

which 47 were small businesses.

39. At this time, however, there is no basis upon which to estimate

definitively the number of phase I 220 MHz service licensees that are

small businesses. To estimate the number of such entities that are

small businesses, we apply the definition of a small entity under SBA

rules applicable to radiotelephone companies. This definition provides

that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing

[[Page 26931]]

no more than 1,500 persons. According to the 1992 Census, which is the

most recent information available, only 12 out of a total 1,178

radiotelephone firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more

employees--and these may or may not be small entities, depending on

whether they employed no more than 1,500 employees. But 1,166

radiotelephone firms had fewer than 1,000 employees and therefore,

under the SBA definition, are small entities. However, we do not know

how many of these 1,166 firms are likely to be involved in the phase I

220 MHz service.

(e) Mobile Satellite Services (MSS)

40. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities

applicable to licensees in the international services. Therefore, the

applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA

rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified

(NEC). This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one

with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts. According to the Census

Bureau, there were a total of 848 communications services, NEC in

operation in 1992, and a total of 775 had annual receipts of less than

$9.999 million.

41. Mobile Satellite Services or Mobile Satellite Earth Stations

are intended to be used while in motion or during halts at unspecified

points. These stations operate as part of a network that includes a

fixed hub or stations. The stations that are capable of transmitting

while a platform is moving are included under section 20.7(c) of the

Commission's Rules as mobile services within the meaning of sections

3(27) and 332 of the Communications Act. Those MSS services are treated

as CMRS if they connect to the Public Switched Network (PSN) and also

satisfy other criteria of section 332. Facilities provided through a

transportable platform that cannot move when the communications service

is offered are excluded from section 20.7(c).

42. The MSS networks may provide a variety of land, maritime and

aeronautical voice and data services. There are eight mobile satellite

licensees. At this time, we are unable to make a precise estimate of

the number of small businesses that are mobile satellite earth station

licensees.

(f) Paging Services

43. The Commission has adopted a two-tier definition of small

businesses in the context of auctioning licenses in the paging service.

A small business is defined as either (1) a entity that, together with

its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues

for the three preceding years of not more than $3 million; or (2) an

entity that, together with affiliates and controlling principals, has

average gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of not

more than $15 million. The SBA has approved this definition for paging

companies.

44. The Commission estimates that the total current number of

paging carriers is approximately 600. In addition, the Commission

anticipates that a total of 16,630 non-nationwide geographic area

licenses will be granted or auctioned. The geographic area licenses

will consist of 2,550 Major Trading Area (MTA) licenses and 14,080

Economic Area (EA) licenses. In addition to the 47 Rand McNally MTAs,

the Commission is licensing Alaska as a separate MTA and adding three

MTAs for the U.S. territories, for a total of 51 MTAs. No auctions of

paging licenses have been held yet, and there is no basis to determine

the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities. Given

the fact that no reliable estimate of the number of paging licensees

can be made, we assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the

current licensees and the 16,630 geographic area paging licensees

either are or will consist of small entities, as that term is defined

by the SBA.

(g) Narrowband PCS

45. The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional licenses

for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have sufficient information

to determine whether any of these licensees are small businesses within

the SBA-approved definition. At present, there have been no auctions

held for the MTA and Basic Trading Area (BTA) narrowband PCS licenses.

The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licensees and 2,958 BTA

licensees will be awarded in the auctions. Those auctions, however,

have not yet been scheduled. Given that nearly all radiotelephone

companies have fewer than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate

of the number of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be

made, we assume, that all of the licensees will be awarded to small

entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

(h) Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service

46. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small business

specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, which is defined in

section 22.99 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we will use the

SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an

entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately

100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate

that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA definition.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements

47. We project that any rules adopted in response to the Notice

will impose no significant new reporting or recordkeeping requirements

on CMRS providers. CMRS providers will, of course, have to comply with

any rate integration requirements that may be adopted in a final order.

As part of that requirement, they may have to integrate their rates

with those of specified affiliates.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

48. Throughout this Notice, we seek comment on the impact of the

proposals in the Notice on small entities. We also seek comment on

whether we should forbear from applying any of the rate integration

requirements on which comment is sought to CMRS providers.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the

Proposed Rules

49. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Communications common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 99-12410 Filed 5-17-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-U