Unbundled Access to Network Elements; Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 8940-8955 [05-3511]
Download as PDF
8940
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
EPA—APPROVED MINNESOTA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS—Continued
Name of nonregulatory SIP
provision
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
State submittal date/
effective date
EPA approved date
Duluth Carbon Monoxide
Redesignation and Maintenance Plan.
Duluth Carbon Monoxide
Transportation Control
Plan.
St. Louis County (part) ........
10/30/92 .........................
04/14/94, 59 FR 17708.
St. Louis County ..................
07/3/79 and 07/27/79 .....
06/16/80, 45 FR 40579.
10/30/92 .........................
04/14/94, 59 FR 17706 ..
Lead Maintenance Plan ......
Dakota County ....................
06/22/93 .........................
10/18/94, 59 FR 52431 ..
Lead Monitoring Plan ..........
Statewide .............................
04/26/83, 02/15/84, and
02/21/84.
07/05/84, 49 FR 27502 ..
Oxygenated Fuels Program—Carbon Monoxide
Contingency Measure.
Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott,
Washington, and Wright
Counties.
Olmstead County ................
04/29/92 .........................
02/21/96, 61 FR6547 .....
07/3/79 and 07/27/79 .....
09/07/94 .........................
05/31/95, 60 FR 28339.
Olmstead County ................
110/4/98 .........................
03/09/01, 66 FR 14087.
Statewide .............................
04/29/92 .........................
03/16/94, 59 FR 12165 ..
Benton, Sherbourne, and
Stearns Counties.
Benton, Sherbourne, and
Stearns Counties.
08/31/89 .........................
06/28/93, 58 FR 34532.
05/17/79 .........................
12/13/79, 44 FR 72116.
08/31/89 .........................
06/20/02 .........................
06/28/93, 58 FR 34529.
07/26/02, 67 FR 48787.
03/23/98 .........................
10/29/99, 64 FR 58347.
07/3/79 and 07/27/79 .....
07/21/81 .........................
05/20/85 and 04/17/86 ...
09/07/94 .........................
06/16/80,
12/08/81,
12/31/86,
05/31/95,
10/03/95 .........................
05/13/97, 62 FR 26230 ..
Removal of transportation
control measure.
Corrected codification information on 05/31/95 at 60
FR 28339.
Entire Lead Plan except for
the New Source Review
portion.
Laws of Minnesota for 1992
Chapter 575, section
29(b).
06/16/80, 45 FR 40579.
Olmstead County ................
Comments
Rochester Carbon Monoxide Transportation Control Plan.
Rochester PM–10 Redesignation and Maintenance
Plan.
Rochester Sulfur Dioxide
Redesignation and Maintenance Plan.
Small Business Stationary
Source Technical and Environmental Compliance
Assistance Plan.
St. Cloud Carbon Monoxide
Redesignation.
St. Cloud Carbon Monoxide
Transportation Control
Plan.
St. Paul PM–10 Redesignation and Maintenance
Plan.
Twin Cities Carbon Monoxide Redesignation and
Maintenance Plan.
Twin Cities Carbon Monoxide Transportation Control Plan.
Twin Cities / Pine Bend Sulfur Dioxide Redesignation
and Maintenance Plan.
Ramsey County ...................
Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott,
Washington, and Wright
Counties.
Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott,
and Washington Counties.
Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey, and
Washington Counties.
[FR Doc. 05–3453 Filed 2–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 51
[WC Docket No. 04–313, CC Docket No. 01–
338; FCC 04–290]
Unbundled Access to Network
Elements; Review of the Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:10 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45
46
51
60
FR
FR
FR
FR
40579 ..
59972 ..
47237.
28339 ..
MN Laws Ch 546 sections 5
through 9.
Except for St. Paul Park
area.
St. Paul Park area.
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts rules concerning
the unbundling obligations of
incumbent local exchange carriers
(LECs), with respect to the dedicated
transport, high-capacity loop, and mass
market circuit switching elements of
their networks. This document also
adopts appropriate transition periods to
allow competitive LECs sufficient time
to migrate their services to alternative
facilities, or to negotiate alternative
commercial arrangements, where
unbundled network elements (UNEs)
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
must no longer be made available
pursuant to our rules. The rules set forth
in this Order on Remand encourage the
innovation and investment that come
from facilities-based competition. By
implementing the Commission’s
unbundling authority pursuant to
section 251 of the Communications Act,
in a targeted manner, this Order
imposes unbundling obligations only in
those situations where the Commission
finds that carriers genuinely are
impaired without access to particular
network elements and where
unbundling does not frustrate
sustainable, facilities-based
competition. This approach satisfies the
guidance of courts to weigh the costs of
unbundling, and ensures that the
Commission’s rules provide the right
incentives for both incumbent and
competitive LECs to invest rationally in
the telecommunications market in the
way that best allows for innovation and
sustainable competition.
DATES: Effective March 11, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. See
Supplementary Information for further
filing instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin
Boone, Attorney-Advisor, Wireline
Competition Bureau, at (202) 418–0064
or via the Internet at erin.boone@fcc.gov.
The complete text of this Order on
Remand 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.
Further information may also be
obtained by calling the Wireline
Competition Bureau’s TTY number:
(202) 418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order on
Remand in WC Docket No. 04–313 and
CC Docket No. 01–338, adopted
December 15, 2004, and released
February 4, 2005. The full text of this
document may be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–
800–378–3160. It is also available on the
Commission’s Web site at https://
www.fcc.gov.
Synopsis of the Order on Remand
1. Background. The Commission took
several steps to avoid excessive
disruption of the local
telecommunications market while it
wrote new rules following the D.C.
Circuit’s decision in United States
Telecom Association v. FCC, 359 F.3d
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
554 (D.C. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 160 L.
Ed 2d 223 (2004), which vacated and
remanded significant portions of the
unbundling rules set forth in the
Commission’s Triennial Review Order,
68 FR 52276 (Sept. 2, 2003), CC Docket
Nos. 01–338, 96–98, 98–147, Report and
Order and Order on Remand and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
18 FCC Rcd 16978 (2003). One of these
steps included the release, on August
20, 2004, of Unbundled Access to
Network Elements; Review of the
Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 69
FR 55111, 69 FR 55128 (Sept. 13, 2004),
CC Docket No. 01–338, WC Docket No.
04–313, Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 16783, 16785–
87, paras. 3–7 (2004) (Interim Order and
Triennial Remand NPRM). The Interim
Order required carriers to adhere to the
commitments they made in their
interconnection agreements, applicable
statements of generally available terms
(SGATs), and relevant state tariffs that
were in effect on June 15, 2004 for an
‘‘interim period’’ beginning on the
effective date of the Interim Order and
NPRM and ending on the earlier of (1)
six months after that effective date or (2)
the effective date of final rules issued in
this proceeding. The Commission also
set forth and sought comment on a
transition plan to govern the period
following the interim period. The
associated Triennial Remand NPRM
sought comment on how to respond to
the USTA II decision in its revised final
rules. In this Order on Remand, the
Commission promulgates those final
rules based on guidance from the courts
and comment received in response to
the Triennial Remand NPRM.
2. Unbundling Framework. In the
USTA II decision, the D.C. Circuit
upheld the general impairment
framework the Commission established
in the Triennial Review Order, but
sought several clarifications and, in
several cases, criticized the manner in
which the Commission applied that
framework to particular elements. In
response to those criticisms, the
Commission clarifies the impairment
standard adopted in the Triennial
Review Order in one respect and
modifies its unbundling framework in
three other respects. First, the
Commission clarifies that it evaluates
impairment with regard to the
capabilities of a reasonably efficient
competitor. Second, it sets aside the
Triennial Review Order’s ‘‘qualifying
service’’ interpretation of section
251(d)(2), but prohibits the use of UNEs
for the exclusive provision of
telecommunications services in the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8941
mobile wireless and long-distance
markets, which the Commission
previously has found to be competitive.
Third, the Commission notes that in
applying its impairment test, it draws
reasonable inferences regarding the
prospects for competition in one
geographic market based on the state of
competition in other, similar markets.
Fourth, it considers the appropriate role
of tariffed incumbent LEC services in its
unbundling framework, and determines
that in the context of the local exchange
market, a general rule prohibiting access
to UNEs whenever a requesting carrier
is able to compete using an incumbent
LEC’s tariffed offering would be
inappropriate.
3. Dedicated Interoffice Transport. In
this Order, the Commission tailors its
unbundling requirements regarding
dedicated interoffice transport narrowly
to ensure that unbundling obligations
apply only where competitive
deployment of these facilities is not
economic. The Commission finds that
competing carriers are impaired without
access to DS1 transport except on routes
connecting a pair of wire centers, where
both wire centers contain either at least
four fiber-based collocators or at least
38,000 business access lines. The
Commission also finds that competing
carriers are impaired without access to
DS3 or dark fiber transport except on
routes connecting a pair of wire centers,
each of which contains at least three
fiber-based collocators or at least 24,000
business lines. Finally, the Commission
finds that competing carriers are not
impaired without access to entrance
facilities connecting an incumbent
LEC’s network with a competitive LEC’s
network in any instance. In addition to
these findings, the Commission adopts a
12-month plan for competing carriers to
transition away from use of DS1- and
DS3-capacity dedicated transport where
they are not impaired, and an 18-month
plan to govern transitions away from
dark fiber transport. These transition
plans apply only to the embedded
customer base, and do not permit
competitive LECs to add new dedicated
transport UNEs in the absence of
impairment. The Commission also
requires that during the transition
periods, competitive carriers retain
access to unbundled dedicated transport
at a rate equal to the higher of (1) 115%
of the rate the requesting carrier paid for
the transport element on June 15, 2004,
or (2) 115% of the rate the state
commission has established or
establishes, if any, between June 16,
2004 and the effective date of this
Order.
4. High-Capacity Loops. The
Commission finds that competitive
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
8942
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
LECs are impaired without access to
DS3-capacity loops except in any
building within the service area of a
wire center containing 38,000 or more
business lines and four or more fiberbased collocators. In addition, the
Commission finds that competitive
LECs are impaired without access to
DS1-capacity loops except in any
building within the service area of a
wire center containing 60,000 or more
business lines and four or more fiberbased collocators. Finally, the
Commission finds that competitive
LECs are not impaired without access to
dark fiber loops in any instance. In
addition to these findings, the
Commission adopts a 12-month plan for
competing carriers to transition away
from use of DS1- and DS3-capacity
loops where they are not impaired, and
an 18-month plan to govern transitions
away from dark fiber loops. These
transition plans apply only to the
embedded customer base, and do not
permit competitive LECs to add new
high-capacity loop UNEs in the absence
of impairment. The Commission
requires that during the transition
periods, competitive carriers retain
access to unbundled facilities at a rate
equal to the higher of (1) 115% of the
rate the requesting carrier paid for the
high-capacity loop element on June 15,
2004, or (2) 115% of the rate the state
commission has established or
establishes, if any, between June 16,
2004 and the effective date of this
Order.
5. Mass Market Local Circuit
Switching. In this Order, the
Commission finds that incumbent LECs
have no obligation to provide
competitive LECs with unbundled
access to mass market local circuit
switching. The Commission concludes
that competitive LECs have deployed a
significant, growing number of their
own switches, often using new, moreefficient technologies such as packet
switches, and could do so in areas they
do not yet serve as well. Thus, the
Commission concludes that requesting
carriers in most cases are not impaired
without access to local circuit
switching. Moreover, the Commission
finds that regardless of any limited
potential impairment requesting carriers
may still face, the continued availability
of unbundled mass market switching
would impose significant costs in the
form of decreased investment
incentives. It therefore determines,
pursuant to section 251(d)(2)’s ‘‘at a
minimum’’ authority, not to require
unbundled access to mass market
switching even in those areas where
competitive LECs might face
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
impairment. In addition, the
Commission adopts a 12-month plan for
competing carriers to transition away
from use of unbundled mass market
local circuit switching. This transition
plan applies only to the embedded
customer base, and does not permit
competitive LECs to add new mass
market switching UNEs. During the
transition period, the Commission states
that competitive carriers will retain
access to the unbundled network
element platform (i.e., the combination
of an unbundled loop, unbundled local
circuit switching, and shared transport)
at a rate equal to the higher of (1) the
rate at which the requesting carrier
leased that combination of elements on
June 15, 2004, plus one dollar, or (2) the
rate the state public utility commission
establishes, if any, between June 16,
2004, and the effective date of this
Order, for this combination of elements,
plus one dollar.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
6. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
Interim Order and NPRM in this
proceeding. The Commission sought
written comment on the proposals in
the Interim Order and NPRM, including
comment on the IRFA. The present
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) addresses comments received on
the IRFA and conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Order
on Remand
7. This Order responds to the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia’s USTA II decision, which
vacated and remanded significant
portions of the Triennial Review Order’s
unbundling rules. Based on the record
compiled in response to the Interim
Order and NPRM, the Commission
adopted, in the Triennial Review Order,
new unbundling rules implementing
section 251 of the 1996 Act. The
Triennial Review Order reinterpreted
the statute’s ‘‘impair’’ standard and
reevaluated incumbent LECs’
unbundling obligations with regard to
particular elements. Various parties
appealed the Triennial Review Order,
and on March 2, 2004, the D.C. Circuit
decided USTA II, vacating and
remanding several of the Triennial
Review Order’s unbundling rules. In this
Order, we address the remanded issues
and take additional steps to encourage
the innovation and investment that
results from facilities-based
competition.
8. Specifically, this Order clarifies the
Triennial Review Order’s impairment
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
standard in one respect and modifies its
application in three respects. First, we
clarify that we evaluate impairment
with regard to the capabilities of a
reasonably efficient competitor. Second,
we set aside the Triennial Review
Order’s ‘‘qualifying service’’
interpretation of section 251(d)(2), but
prohibit the use of UNEs for the
provision of telecommunications
services in the mobile wireless and
long-distance markets, which we
previously have found to be
competitive. Third, in applying our
impairment test, we draw reasonable
inferences regarding the prospects for
competition in one geographic market
based on the state of competition in
other, similar markets. Fourth, we
consider the appropriate role of tariffed
incumbent LEC services in our
unbundling framework, and determine
that in the context of the local exchange
markets, a general rule prohibiting
access to UNEs whenever a requesting
carrier is able to compete using an
incumbent LEC’s tariffed offering would
be inappropriate. We then apply this
revised unbundling framework to the
dedicated transport network element,
the high-capacity loop network element,
and the mass market local circuit
switching network element. In each
case, we adopt a result that will promote
the deployment of competitive facilities
wherever possible, spreading the
benefits of facilities-based competition
to market entrants and end-user
customers alike, including small
businesses falling into each category.
Summary and Discussion of Significant
Issues Raised by Public Comments in
Response to IRFA
9. In this section, we respond to
comments filed in response to the IRFA.
To the extent we received comments
raising general small business concerns
during this proceeding, those comments
are discussed throughout the Order and
are summarized in part E, below.
10. First, we reject TeleTruth’s
contention that the Commission fails to
assess the impact of its unbundling
rules on small Internet Service
Providers (ISPs), and that this failure
violates the RFA. Although we
understand that our rules will have an
economic impact in many sectors of the
economy, including the ISP market, the
RFA only requires the Commission to
consider the impact on entities directly
subject to our rules. The RFA is not
applicable to ISPs because, as we
previously noted, ISPs are only
indirectly affected by our unbundling
actions and were not formally included
in the IRFA or formally included in this
FRFA. In the interest of ensuring notice
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
to all interested parties and out of an
abundance of caution, we have
previously included ISPs among the
entities potentially indirectly affected
by our unbundling rules, although we
have been explicit in emphasizing that
ISPs are only indirectly affected by
these rules. On this subject, we note that
the D.C. Circuit ‘‘has consistently held
that the RFA imposes no obligation to
conduct a small entity impact analysis
of effects on entities which [the agency
conducting the analysis] does not
regulate.’’ Thus, we emphasize that the
RFA imposes no independent obligation
to examine the effects an agency’s action
will have on the customers, clients, or
end users of the companies it
regulates—including ISPs—unless such
entities are, themselves, subject to
regulation by the agency. In any event,
we have considered the needs of small
business customers of competitive (and
incumbent) LECs throughout this Order
and previous Orders, in each case
choosing the outcome that will foster
facilities-based competition and the
benefits such competition will bring to
small businesses and other consumers
of telecommunications.
11. We also reject TeleTruth’s
argument that the Commission violates
the RFA by relying on outdated 1997
Census Bureau data to identify the
number of ISPs potentially affected by
our final rules in the IRFA. The 1997
Census Bureau data were and still are
the most current data available.
According to TeleTruth, data compiled
by both the SBA and Boardwatch/ISPPlanet, an ISP-focused periodical,
indicate that the number of ISPs is close
to 7,000, rather than the 2,751 ISPs
identified by the IRFA. Although
TeleTruth cites to higher numbers, the
Census Bureau has not released the
more recent (2002) results for
telecommunications providers or for
ISPs. Thus, the IRFA in this proceeding
and this FRFA appropriately rely on the
most up-to-date 1997 Census Bureau
data and therefore comply with the
RFA.
12. We disagree with TeleTruth’s
claim that by relying on 1997 Census
Bureau data in the IRFA, the
Commission violates the Data Quality
Act (DQA). We conclude that the IRFA’s
description of the ISP marketplace
based on 1997 Census Bureau data was
consistent with the Commission’s DQA
guidelines. As an initial matter, the
DQA requires federal agencies to issue
information quality guidelines ensuring
the quality, utility, objectivity and
integrity of information that they
disseminate, and to provide
mechanisms by which affected persons
can take action to correct any errors
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
reflected in such information. In 2002,
the Commission adopted guidelines
implementing the DQA stating that it is
dedicated to ensuring that all data that
it disseminates reflect a level of quality
commensurate with the nature of the
information. Specifically, these
guidelines require the Commission to
review and substantiate the quality of
information before it is disseminated to
the public and describe the
administrative mechanisms allowing
affected persons to seek and obtain
correction of information that does not
comply with the guidelines. By relying
on the most recent Census Bureau data,
the Commission complied with DQA
guidelines as the Census Bureau is the
leading source of high-quality data of
the sort set forth in the IRFA—and a
source on which we have consistently
relied. In this regard, we note that the
Census Bureau data and SBA generic
small business size standards track each
other precisely, as intended by both the
Census Bureau and SBA. Moreover, as
indicated above, we have updated this
FRFA based on the recent preliminary
2002 Census Bureau Industry Series
data, mitigating the concern that the
data set out in the IRFA was too old to
be of use in assessing the impact our
conclusions might have on small
entities.
13. We also reject TeleTruth’s
argument that the Commission violates
the RFA by failing to conduct proper
outreach to small businesses for
purposes of compiling a comprehensive
record in this proceeding. The
Commission has satisfied its RFA
obligation to assure that small
companies were able to participate in
this proceeding. Specifically, the RFA
requires the Commission to ‘‘assure that
small entities have been given an
opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking,’’ and proposes as example
five ‘‘reasonable techniques’’ that an
agency might employ to do so. In this
proceeding, the Commission has
complied with the RFA by employing
several of these techniques: it (1) has
published a ‘‘notice of proposed
rulemaking in publications likely to be
obtained by small entities’’; (2) has
‘‘inclu[ded] * * * a statement that the
proposed rule may have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities’’ in the Interim Order
and NPRM; (3) has solicited comments
over its computer network; and (4) has
acted ‘‘to reduce the cost or complexity
of participation in the rulemaking by
small entities’’ by, among other things,
facilitating electronic submission of
comments.
14. We also disagree with commenters
that claim that the Commission did not
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8943
specifically consider the impact of
eliminating UNEs on small businesses
or describe alternatives to minimize any
impact in the IRFA. Although the Small
Business Administration Office of
Advocacy (SBA Advocacy) recommends
that we issue a revised IRFA to account
for the impact our rules might have on
small competitive LECs, we believe it is
not necessary since the Interim Order
and NPRM explained in detail the
ruling of the D.C. Circuit in USTA II,
which gave rise to this proceeding;
posed specific questions to commenters
regarding the proper implementation of
that decision; and solicited comment
from all parties. While the NPRM did
not specify particular results the
Commission would consider—and the
IRFA therefore did not catalogue the
effects that such particular results might
have on small businesses—the
Commission provided notice to parties
regarding the range of policy outcomes
that might result from this order. As
indicated above, a summary of the
Interim Order and NPRM was published
in the Federal Register, and we believe
that such publication constitutes
appropriate notice to small businesses
subject to this Commission’s regulation.
Indeed, far from discouraging small
entities from participating, the Interim
Order and NPRM and the associated
IRFA elicited extensive comment on
issues affecting small businesses. These
comments have enabled us to consider
the concerns of competitive LECs
throughout this order. Moreover, in Part
C, below, we attempt to estimate the
number of competitive LECs that will be
affected by the rules we adopt herein.
We therefore reject arguments that small
entities were prejudiced by any lack of
specificity regarding specific results
potentially resulting from this
proceeding.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which the Rules
Would Apply
15. 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 rules adopted herein. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. 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
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
8944
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
16. In this section, we further describe
and estimate the number of small entity
licensees and regulatees that may be
affected by our action. The most reliable
source of information regarding the total
numbers of certain common carrier and
related providers nationwide, as well as
the number of commercial wireless
entities, appears to be the data that the
Commission publishes in its Trends in
Telephone Service report. The SBA has
developed small business size standards
for wireline and wireless small
businesses within the three commercial
census categories of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, Paging,
and Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications. Under these
categories, a business is small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using
the above size standards and others, we
discuss the total estimated numbers of
small businesses that might be affected
by our actions.
17. We have included small
incumbent LECs 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.’’ SBA
Advocacy contends that, for RFA
purposes, small incumbent LECs are not
dominant in their field of operation
because any such dominance is not
‘‘national’’ in scope. We have therefore
included small incumbent LECs in this
RFA analysis, although we emphasize
that this RFA action has no effect on
Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
18. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Census Bureau data for 1997, there were
2,225 firms in this category, total, that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 2,201 firms had employment of
999 or fewer employees, and an
additional 24 firms had employment of
1,000 employees or more. Thus, under
this size standard, the great majority of
firms can be considered small.
19. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers. Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a small business
size standard specifically for incumbent
local exchange services (LECs). The
appropriate size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,310
carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of incumbent
local exchange services. Of these 1,310
carriers, an estimated 1,025 have 1,500
or fewer employees and 285 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most
providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses that may be
affected by our proposed action.
20. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers, 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, 563 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the
provision of either CAP services or
competitive LEC services. Of these 563
carriers, an estimated 472 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 91 have more than
1,500 employees. In addition, 14
carriers have reported that they are
‘‘Shared-Tenant Service Providers,’’ and
all 14 are estimated to have 1,500 or
fewer employees. In addition, 37
carriers have reported that they are
‘‘Other Local Service Providers.’’ Of the
37, an estimated 36 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and one has more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of competitive local exchange
service, competitive access providers,
‘‘Shared-Tenant Service Providers,’’ and
‘‘Other Local Service Providers’’ are
small entities that may be affected by
our proposed action.
21. 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, 281 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the
provision of interexchange service. Of
these, an estimated 254 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 27 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22. Operator Service Providers (OSPs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size
standard specifically for OSPs. 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, 23
carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of operator
services. Of these, an estimated 22 have
1,500 or fewer employees and one has
more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of OSPs are
small entities that may be affected by
our proposed action.
23. Prepaid Calling Card Providers.
The SBA has developed a size standard
for a small business within the category
of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
that SBA size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Commission
data, 32 companies reported that they
were engaged in the provision of
prepaid calling cards. Of these 32
companies, an estimated 31 have 1,500
or fewer employees and one has more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that the great
majority of prepaid calling card
providers are small entities that may be
affected by the rules and policies
adopted herein.
24. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a size standard for small businesses
specifically applicable to ‘‘Other Toll
Carriers.’’ This category includes toll
carriers that do not fall within the
categories of interexchange carriers,
OSPs, prepaid calling card providers,
satellite service carriers, or toll resellers.
The closest applicable size standard
under SBA rules is for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under
that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission’s data, 65
companies reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
the provision of other toll services. Of
these 65 companies, an estimated 62
have 1,500 or fewer employees and
three have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most ‘‘Other Toll
Carriers’’ are small entities that may be
affected by the rules and policies
adopted herein.
25. Wireless Service Providers. The
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for wireless firms within
the two broad economic census
categories of ‘‘Paging’’ and ‘‘Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications.’’
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Under both SBA categories, a wireless
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For the census category of
Paging, Census Bureau data for 1997
show that there were 1,320 firms in this
category, total, that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 1,303 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees,
and an additional 17 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or
more. Thus, under this category and
associated small business size standard,
the great majority of firms can be
considered small. For the census
category Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications, Census Bureau
data for 1997 show that there were 977
firms in this category, total, that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 965 firms had employment of 999
or fewer employees, and an additional
12 firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Thus, under this
second category and size standard, the
great majority of firms can, again, be
considered small.
26. Broadband PCS. The broadband
PCS spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through
F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The
Commission defined ‘‘small entity’’ for
Blocks C and F as an entity that has
average gross revenues of $40 million or
less in the three previous calendar
years. For Block F, an additional
classification for ‘‘very small business’’
was added and is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates, has
average gross revenues of not more than
$15 million for the preceding three
calendar years.’’ These standards
defining ‘‘small entity’’ 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. On
March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block
licenses. There were 48 small business
winning bidders. On January 26, 2001,
the Commission completed the auction
of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses
in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning
bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as
‘‘small’’ or ‘‘very small’’ businesses.
Subsequent events, concerning Auction
305, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163
C and F Block licenses being available
for grant. In addition, we note that, as
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses
at the close of an auction does not
necessarily represent the number of
small businesses currently in service. In
addition, the Commission does not
generally track subsequent business size
unless, in the context of assignments or
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated.
27. Narrowband Personal
Communications Services (PCS). The
Commission held an auction for
Narrowband PCS licenses that
commenced on July 25, 1994, and
closed on July 29, 1994. A second
auction commenced on October 26,
1994 and closed on November 8, 1994.
For purposes of the first two
Narrowband PCS auctions, ‘‘small
businesses’’ were entities with average
gross revenues for the prior three
calendar years of $40 million or less.
Through these auctions, the
Commission awarded a total of 41
licenses, 11 of which were obtained by
four small businesses. To ensure
meaningful participation by small
business entities in future auctions, the
Commission adopted a two-tiered small
business size standard in the
Narrowband PCS Second Report and
Order. A ‘‘small business’’ is an entity
that, together with affiliates and
controlling interests, has average gross
revenues for the three preceding years of
not more than $40 million. A ‘‘very
small business’’ is an entity that,
together with affiliates and controlling
interests, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more
than $15 million. The SBA has
approved these small business size
standards. A third auction commenced
on October 3, 2001 and closed on
October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders
won 317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas
and nationwide) licenses. Three of these
claimed status as a small or very small
entity and won 311 licenses.
28. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I
Licensees. The 220 MHz service has
both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase
I licensing was conducted by lotteries in
1992 and 1993. There are approximately
1,515 such non-nationwide licensees
and four nationwide licensees currently
authorized to operate in the 220 MHz
band. The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to such
incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees.
To estimate the number of such
licensees that are small businesses, we
apply the small business size standard
under the SBA rules applicable to
‘‘Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications’’ companies. This
category provides that a small business
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8945
is a wireless company employing no
more than 1,500 persons. According to
the Census Bureau data for 1997, only
twelve firms out of a total of 1,238 such
firms that operated for the entire year in
1997, had 1,000 or more employees. If
this general ratio continues in the
context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees,
the Commission estimates that nearly all
such licensees are small businesses
under the SBA’s small business
standard.
29. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II
Licensees. The 220 MHz service has
both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The
Phase II 220 MHz service is a new
service, and is subject to spectrum
auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report
and Order, we adopted a small business
size standard for defining ‘‘small’’ and
‘‘very small’’ businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special
provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments. This small
business standard indicates that a
‘‘small business’’ is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 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 do not exceed $3 million
for the preceding three years. The SBA
has approved these small size standards.
Auctions of Phase II licenses
commenced on September 15, 1998, and
closed on October 22, 1998. In the first
auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in
three different-sized geographic areas:
three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional
Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses,
and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses.
Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were
sold. Thirty-nine small businesses won
373 licenses in the first 220 MHz
auction. A second auction included 225
licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG
licenses. Fourteen companies claiming
small business status won 158 licenses.
A third auction included four licenses:
2 BEA licenses and 2 EAG licenses in
the 220 MHz Service. No small or very
small business won any of these
licenses.
30. 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
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
8946
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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 began
on December 5, 1995, and closed on
April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming
that they qualified as small businesses
under the $15 million size standard won
263 geographic area licenses in the 900
MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR
auction for the upper 200 channels
began on October 28, 1997, and was
completed on December 8, 1997. Ten
bidders claiming that they qualified as
small businesses under the $15 million
size standard won 38 geographic area
licenses for the upper 200 channels in
the 800 MHz SMR band. A second
auction for the 800 MHz band was held
on January 10, 2002 and closed on
January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA
licenses. One bidder claiming small
business status won five licenses.
31. Common Carrier Paging. The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for wireless firms within the
broad economic census categories of
‘‘Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.’’ Under this SBA
category, a wireless business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the
census category of Paging, Census
Bureau data for 1997 show that there
were 1,320 firms in this category, total,
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 1,303 firms had employment of
999 or fewer employees, and an
additional 17 firms had employment of
1,000 employees or more. Thus, under
this category and associated small
business size standard, the great
majority of firms can be considered
small.
32. In the Paging Second Report and
Order, the Commission adopted a size
standard for ‘‘small businesses’’ for
purposes of determining their eligibility
for special provisions such as bidding
credits and installment payments. A
small business is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues
not exceeding $15 million for the
preceding three years. The SBA has
approved this definition. An auction of
Metropolitan Economic Area (MEA)
licenses commenced on February 24,
2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of
the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were
sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming
small business status won 440 licenses.
An auction of MEA and Economic Area
(EA) licenses commenced on October
30, 2001, and closed on December 5,
2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned,
5,323 were sold. One hundred thirtytwo companies claiming small business
status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in
each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in
all but three of the 51 MEAs
commenced on May 13, 2003, and
closed on May 28, 2003. Seventy-seven
bidders claiming small or very small
business status won 2,093 licenses.
Currently, there are approximately
74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses.
According to the most recent Trends in
Telephone Service, 379 private and
common carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of either
paging or ‘‘other mobile’’ services. Of
these, we estimate that 373 are small,
under the SBA-approved small business
size standard. We estimate that the
majority of common carrier paging
providers would qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition.
33. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In
the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, we
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. An auction
of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA)
licenses commenced on September 6,
2000, and closed on September 21,
2000. 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 on February 13,
2001, and closed on February 21, 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.
34. 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 BETRS.
The Commission uses the SBA’s small
business size standard applicable to
‘‘Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications,’’ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted herein.
35. Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service. The Commission has not
adopted a small business size standard
specific to the Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service. We will use
SBA’s small business size standard
applicable to ‘‘Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications,’’ 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 small business
size standard.
36. Aviation and Marine Radio
Services. Small businesses in the
aviation and marine radio services use
a very high frequency (VHF) marine or
aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an
emergency position-indicating radio
beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency
locator transmitter. The Commission has
not developed a small business size
standard specifically applicable to these
small businesses. For purposes of this
analysis, the Commission uses the SBA
small business size standard for the
category ‘‘Cellular and Other
Telecommunications,’’ which is 1,500
or fewer employees. Most applicants for
recreational licenses are individuals.
Approximately 581,000 ship station
licensees and 131,000 aircraft station
licensees operate domestically and are
not subject to the radio carriage
requirements of any statute or treaty.
For purposes of our evaluations in this
analysis, we estimate that there are up
to approximately 712,000 licensees that
are small businesses (or individuals)
under the SBA standard. In addition,
between December 3, 1998 and
December 14, 1998, the Commission
held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast
licenses in the 157.1875–157.4500 MHz
(ship transmit) and 161.775–162.0125
MHz (coast transmit) bands. For
purposes of the auction, the
Commission defined a ‘‘small’’ business
as an entity that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has
average gross revenues for the preceding
three years not to exceed $15 million
dollars. In addition, a ‘‘very small’’
business is one that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has
average gross revenues for the preceding
three years not to exceed $3 million
dollars. There are approximately 10,672
licensees in the Marine Coast Service,
and the Commission estimates that
almost all of them qualify as ‘‘small’’
businesses under the above special
small business size standards.
37. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed
microwave services include common
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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 ‘‘Cellular and Other
Telecommunications,’’ which is 1,500
or fewer employees. The Commission
does not have data specifying the
number of these licensees that have
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 up
to 22,015 common carrier fixed
licensees and up to 61,670 private
operational-fixed 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 noted,
however, that the common carrier
microwave fixed licensee category
includes some large entities.
38. Offshore Radiotelephone Service.
This service operates on several ultra
high frequencies (UHF) television
broadcast channels that are not used for
television broadcasting in the coastal
areas of states bordering the Gulf of
Mexico. There are presently
approximately 55 licensees in this
service. We are unable to estimate at
this time the number of licensees that
would qualify as small under the SBA’s
small business size standard for
‘‘Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications’’ services. Under
that SBA small business size standard,
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees.
39. 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
commenced on April 15, 1997 and
closed on April 25, 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.
An auction for one license in the 1670–
1674 MHz band commenced on April
30, 2003 and closed the same day. One
license was awarded. The winning
bidder was not a small entity.
40. 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 on April 12, 2000 and closed on
May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who
claimed small business status won 849
licenses. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz
licensees are small entities that may be
affected by the rules and policies
proposed herein.
41. Multipoint Distribution Service,
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service, and Instructional Television
Fixed Service. Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution Service (MMDS) systems,
often referred to as ‘‘wireless cable,’’
transmit video programming to
subscribers using the microwave
frequencies of the Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS) and
Instructional Television Fixed Service
(ITFS). In connection with the 1996
MDS auction, the Commission defined
‘‘small business’’ as an entity that,
together with its affiliates, has average
gross annual revenues that are not more
than $40 million for the preceding three
calendar years. The SBA has approved
of this standard. The MDS auction
resulted in 67 successful bidders
obtaining licensing opportunities for
493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the
67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as
a small business. At this time, we
estimate that of the 61 small business
MDS auction winners, 48 remain small
business licensees. In addition to the 48
small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately
392 incumbent MDS licensees that have
gross revenues that are not more than
$40 million and are thus considered
small entities.
42. In addition, the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for Cable and Other Program
Distribution, which includes all such
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8947
companies generating $12.5 million or
less in annual receipts. According to
Census Bureau data for 1997, there were
a total of 1,311 firms in this category,
total, that had operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 1,180 firms had
annual receipts of under $10 million,
and an additional 52 firms had receipts
of $10 million or more but less than $25
million. Consequently, we estimate that
the majority of providers in this service
category are small businesses that may
be affected by the proposed rules and
policies.
43. Finally, while SBA approval for a
Commission-defined small business size
standard applicable to ITFS is pending,
educational institutions are included in
this analysis as small entities. There are
currently 2,032 ITFS licensees, and all
but 100 of these licenses are held by
educational institutions. Thus, we
tentatively conclude that at least 1,932
ITFS licensees are small businesses.
44. 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 Local Multipoint Distribution
Service (LMDS) licenses began on
February 18, 1998 and closed on March
25, 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. On March 27, 1999, the
Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses;
there were 32 small and very small
business winners that won 119 licenses.
45. 218–219 MHz Service. The first
auction of 218–219 MHz (previously
referred to as the Interactive and Video
Data Service or IVDS) spectrum resulted
in 178 entities winning licenses for 594
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs).
Of the 594 licenses, 567 were won by
167 entities qualifying as a small
business. For that auction, we defined a
small business as an entity that, together
with its affiliates, has no more than a $6
million net worth and, after federal
income taxes (excluding any carry over
losses), has no more than $2 million in
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
8948
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
annual profits each year for the previous
two years. In the 218–219 MHz Report
and Order and Memorandum Opinion
and Order, we defined a small business
as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and persons or entities that
hold interests in such an entity and
their affiliates, has average annual gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for
the preceding three years. A very small
business is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and persons
or entities that hold interests in such an
entity and its affiliates, has average
annual gross revenues not exceeding $3
million for the preceding three years.
The SBA has approved of these
definitions. At this time, we cannot
estimate the number of licenses that will
be won by entities qualifying as small or
very small businesses under our rules in
future auctions of 218–219 MHz
spectrum. Given the success of small
businesses in the previous auction, and
the prevalence of small businesses in
the subscription television services and
message communications industries, we
assume for purposes of this analysis that
in future auctions, many, and perhaps
all, of the licenses may be awarded to
small businesses.
46. 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
‘‘Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications’’ companies. This
category provides that such a company
is small if it employs no more than
1,500 persons. According to Census
Bureau data for 1997, there were 977
firms in this category, total, that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 965 firms had employment of 999
or fewer employees, and an additional
12 firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Thus, under this
size standard, the great majority of firms
can be considered small. These 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
less than 1,500 employees, though this
may change in the future. TRW is not a
small entity. Thus, only one incumbent
licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small
business entity.
47. 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
48. Internet Service Providers. While
ISPs are only indirectly affected by our
present actions, and ISPs are therefore
not formally included within this
present FRFA, we have addressed them
informally to create a fuller record and
to recognize their participation in this
proceeding. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for ISPs.
This category comprises establishments
‘‘primarily engaged in providing direct
access through telecommunications
networks to computer-held information
compiled or published by others.’’
Under the SBA size standard, such a
business is small if it has average annual
receipts of $21 million or less.
According to Census Bureau data for
1997, there were 2,751 firms in this
category that operated for the entire
year. Of these, 2,659 firms had annual
receipts of under $10 million, and an
additional 67 firms had receipts of
between $10 million and $24,999,999.
Thus, under this size standard, the great
majority of firms can be considered
small entities.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
49. Pursuant to sections 251(c) and (d)
of the Act, incumbent LECs, including
those that qualify as small entities, are
required to provide nondiscriminatory
access to UNEs to requesting
telecommunications carriers in certain
circumstances. In this Order, we modify
our unbundling rules, as described
above. Specifically, we conclude, except
as set forth in other Commission orders,
that requesting carriers: (1) Shall be
afforded unbundled access to DS1capacity dedicated transport except on
routes connecting a pair of wire centers,
where both wire centers contain at least
four fiber-based collocators or at least
38,000 business access lines; (2) shall be
afforded unbundled access to DS3capacity dedicated transport except on
routes connecting a pair of wire centers,
each of which contains at least three
fiber-based collocators or at least 24,000
business lines; (3) shall be afforded
unbundled access to dark fiber
dedicated transport except on routes
connecting a pair of wire centers, each
of which contains at least three fiber-
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
based collocators or at least 24,000
business lines; (4) shall not be afforded
unbundled access to entrance facilities
in any instance; (5) shall be afforded
unbundled access to DS1-capacity loops
except in any building within the
service area of wire centers with 60,000
or more business lines and 4 or more
fiber-based collocators; (6) shall be
afforded unbundled access to DS3capacity loops except in any building
within the service area of wire centers
with 38,000 or more business lines and
4 or more fiber-based collocators; (7)
shall not be afforded unbundled access
to dark fiber loops in any instance; and
(8) shall not be afforded unbundled
access to mass market local circuit
switching in any instance. We also set
forth specific transition plans to govern
competitive carriers’ migration from
UNEs to alternative arrangements,
where necessary. The various
compliance requirements contained in
this Order will require the use of
engineering, technical, operational,
accounting, billing, and legal skills. The
carriers that are affected by these
requirements already possess these
skills.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
50. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
51. In this Order, we adopt rules
implementing section 251(c)(3) of the
Communications Act, which requires
that incumbent LECs make elements of
their networks available on an
unbundled basis to new entrants at costbased rates, pursuant to standards set
out in section 251(d)(2). As noted above,
these rules respond to the D.C. Circuit’s
decision in USTA II. Particularly, we
focus on those items that the court
remanded for our consideration. Our
actions will affect both
telecommunications carriers that
request access to UNEs and the
incumbent LECs that must provide
access to UNEs under section 251(c)(3).
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
52. In arriving at the conclusions
described above, the Commission
considered various alternatives, which
it rejected or accepted for the reasons set
forth in the body of this Order, and
made certain changes to the rules to
reduce undue regulatory burdens,
consistent with the Communications
Act and with guidance received from
the courts. These efforts to reduce
regulatory burden will affect both large
and small carriers. The significant
alternatives that commenters discussed
and that we considered are as follows.
53. Reasonably Efficient Competitor.
In this Order, we clarify that, in
assessing impairment pursuant to the
standard set forth in the Triennial
Review Order, we presume a reasonably
efficient competitor. Specifically, we
presume that a requesting carrier will
use reasonably efficient technology and
we consider all the revenue
opportunities that such a competitor can
reasonably expect to gain over the
facilities, taking into account limitations
on entrants’ ability to provide multiple
services. This clarification, we
conclude, will encourage facilitiesbased competitors, including small
businesses, to deploy efficient
technologies so as to maximize quality
of service and minimize costs. Thus,
while we recognize that our approach
might prevent inefficient small entities
from using UNEs to compete (i.e., in
those cases where a reasonably efficient
small entity would not require access to
UNEs), we believe that the alternative
approach, which would reward
inefficiency and produce overbroad
unbundling rules, would be inconsistent
with the Communications Act.
54. Service Considerations. In
response to the USTA II court’s
guidance, we revise our approach to
unbundling for the exclusive provision
of long distance and mobile wireless
services. Specifically, we abandon the
‘‘qualifying services’’ approach set forth
in the Triennial Review Order, which
limited the section 251(d)(2) inquiry to
a subset of telecommunications services
and which was rejected by the D.C.
Circuit. Based on the record, the court’s
guidance, and the Commission’s
previous findings, we find that the
mobile wireless services market and
long distance services market are
markets where competition has evolved
without access to UNEs. We have
therefore determined, pursuant to our
‘‘at a minimum’’ authority to consider
factors other than impairment when
assessing unbundling obligations, to
prohibit access to UNEs for exclusive
provision of service to those markets.
We also considered, but declined to
adopt, an approach also barring use of
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
UNEs for provision of other services
specified in the Act—namely, telephone
exchange service and exchange access
service, the two services LECs provide.
We recognize that the use restrictions
adopted in this Order may prevent small
providers of mobile wireless and long
distance service from using UNEs to
compete. We conclude, however, that
given the court’s guidance, and the
generally competitive state of the mobile
wireless and long distance markets, the
benefits associated with unbundling
would not be commensurate with the
costs imposed on incumbent LECs, and
would potentially depress deployment
of new facilities that would ultimately
redound to the benefit of all carriers and
end-user customers of every size.
55. Reasonable Inferences. In this
Order, we adopt an approach that relies,
to a far greater degree than our previous
analyses, on the inferences that can be
drawn from one market regarding the
prospects for competitive entry in
another. As described in detail in the
Order, we rely, where possible, on
correlations between business line
counts and/or fiber collocations in a
particular wire center, on the one hand,
and the deployment of competitive
dedicated transport or high-capacity
loops, on the other. We have considered
and rejected the alternative of relying
only actual deployment in assessing
unbundling obligations. As described
more fully in the Order, we have
concluded that the ‘‘actual deployment’’
approach would be impracticable to
administer, would be inconsistent with
the USTA II decision, and would
overstate requesting carriers’ UNE
needs.
56. Relevance of Tariffed Alternatives.
In this Order, we address the relevance
of special access tariffed offerings to the
unbundling inquiry in the local
exchange markets where we find UNE
access to be appropriate. We find that
statutory concerns, administrability
concerns, and concerns about
anticompetitive price squeeze preclude
a rule foreclosing UNE access when
carriers are able to compete using
special access or other tariffed
alternatives. We also find that a
competitor’s current use of special
access does not, on its own, demonstrate
that that carrier is not impaired without
access to UNEs. We note that to reach
a different result would be inconsistent
with the Act’s text and its interpretation
by various courts, would be
impracticable, and would create a
significant risk of abuse by incumbent
LECs. This decision is consistent with
the interests of many small businesses,
who claim, for example, that they
cannot compete against incumbent LECs
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8949
in the local exchange markets using
tariffed alternatives to UNEs.
57. Dedicated Transport. In this
Order, we limit unbundled access to
dedicated transport to those routes on
which competitive deployment at a
particular capacity level is not
economic. Specifically, we find that
competing carriers are impaired without
access to DS1 transport except on routes
connecting a pair of wire centers, where
both wire centers contain at least four
fiber-based collocators or at least 38,000
business access lines, and that
competing carriers are impaired without
access to DS3 or dark fiber transport
except on routes connecting a pair of
wire centers, each of which contains at
least three fiber-based collocators or at
least 24,000 business lines. Finally, we
find that competing carriers are not
impaired without access to entrance
facilities connecting an incumbent
LEC’s network with a competitive LEC’s
network in any instance.
58. In reaching our decisions
concerning dedicated transport, we
considered the comments by small
competitive LECs, which generally
sought broader unbundled access to
dedicated transport links. We rejected
these arguments, finding that they failed
to account adequately for the prospects
of competitive deployment and for the
advantages held out by such
deployment, where feasible, for
consumers and carriers alike. Similarly,
we also rejected a ‘‘matched pair’’
approach that would require the
existence of actual competitive transport
links (whether direct or indirect) before
relieving an incumbent’s unbundling
obligations, because that approach
failed to draw reasonable inferences
regarding potential deployment.
Alternatively, we also considered and
rejected arguments that we should
employ higher business line and fiberbased collocator thresholds in assessing
impairment. While these higher
thresholds might have minimized
unbundling obligations and thus
benefited small (and large) incumbent
LECs, we believed that higher
thresholds would understate the need
for unbundling, and would prohibit
UNE access on routes where
competitive deployment was not
economic. Finally, we considered but
rejected alternative proposals to adopt
conclusions regarding transport that
would apply to entire MSAs. A single
MSA can encompass urban, suburban,
and rural areas, each of which presents
different challenges to competitive LECs
seeking to self-deploy facilities. Thus,
while we recognize that MSA-wide
determinations might confer
administrability-related efficiencies on
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
8950
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
small entities, we believe that our more
specific route-based approach is also
easily administered, and permits a
greater degree of nuance in assessing
unbundling obligations.
59. High-Capacity Loops. We find that
competitive LECs are impaired without
access to DS3-capacity loops except in
any building within the service area of
a wire center containing 38,000 or more
business lines and 4 or more fiber-based
collocators. Furthermore, competitive
LECs are impaired without access to
DS1-capacity loops except in any
building within the service area of a
wire center containing 60,000 or more
business lines and 4 or more fiber-based
collocators. Finally, we determine that
competitive LECs are not impaired
without access to dark fiber loops in any
instance.
60. As with dedicated transport, we
have considered and rejected proposals
to adopt either more restrictive or less
restrictive unbundling rules, which we
recognize might benefit small
incumbent LECs or small competitive
LECs, respectively. For reasons
explained in the Order, we believe our
choice of thresholds properly assesses
the prospects for competitive
duplication of loops at the DS1 and DS3
capacity, incorporating reasonable
inferences regarding potential
deployment of such facilities from the
areas in which competitors actually
have deployed high-capacity loops. We
have also considered, and rejected as
unadministrable, a building-specific
approach to loop impairment. While the
building-specific approach might allow
more nuance than the approach we have
chosen, we believe that it would be
impracticable to administer, and would
invite protracted conflict between
carriers as to whether or not unbundling
was permitted in each particular
building. Such disputes would benefit
no party, and might in fact impose
disproportionate costs on small
incumbent LECs and competitive LECs.
Finally, we have considered, and
rejected, proposals that we evaluate
impairment for high-capacity loops not
by wire center, but by broader
geographic areas, such as MSAs. As
noted above, a single MSA can
encompass wide areas presenting a
range of topographies and customer
densities, and thus a variety of distinct
circumstances with regard to the
prospects for competitive deployment.
As explained in the Order, we believe
that our wire-center approach to
evaluating impairment with regard to
high-capacity loops strikes the proper
balance between administrability and
case-specificity.
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
61. Mass Market Local Circuit
Switching. We find that incumbent LECs
have no obligation to provide
competitive LECs with unbundled
access to mass market local circuit
switching. Many commenters suggested
a variety of alternatives to this rule,
several of which were intended to
mitigate the rule’s effect on small
competitive LECs. Specifically, we
considered and rejected arguments that
small competitive LECs are impaired in
specific circumstances due to unique
characteristics of the particular
customer markets or geographic markets
they seek to serve or because of the
competitive carrier’s size. For instance,
some commenters argued that
competitive LECs are uniquely impaired
when seeking to serve rural areas. We
concluded that these commenters’
claims were at odds with our
impairment standard, which evaluates
impairment based on a ‘‘reasonably
efficient competitor,’’ not based on the
individualized circumstances of a
particular requesting carrier, and
‘‘consider[s] all the revenue
opportunities that such a competitor can
reasonably expect to gain over the
facilities, from providing all possible
services that an entrant could
reasonably expect to sell.’’ Moreover, to
the extent that small competitive LECs
are harmed by our decision not to
permit unbundled access to mass
market local circuit switching, we
believe that the attendant increase in
incentives to deploy facilities justify a
bar on unbundling even where the
competitive carrier might be
‘‘impaired,’’ and thus believe it is
appropriate to invoke our ‘‘at a
minimum’’ authority to prohibit
unbundling in these cases. Although we
recognize that some small carriers might
find it more difficult to compete without
unbundled access to switching, we
believe that the corresponding increase
in deployment incentives—for
incumbent LECs and competitive LECs
alike—justifies our approach here.
62. We have also considered
comments that ask the Commission to
minimize the impact of our decision on
small businesses by imposing particular
requirements regarding the incumbent
LEC hot cut process. However, as
explained above, the record
demonstrates that the incumbent LECs
from whom competitive carriers are
receiving unbundled switching in
almost all cases—i.e., the BOCs—have a
record of providing hot cuts on a timely
basis and have made significant
improvements in their hot cut processes
that should enable them to perform
larger volumes of hot cuts to the extent
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
necessary. We believe that the
improvements in the hot cut process
will ultimately benefit small businesses
and should ensure a smooth transition
away from mass market switching
UNEs.
63. Transition Plans. The Order also
sets out transition plans to govern the
migration away from UNEs where a
particular element is no longer available
on an unbundled basis. We have
considered various comments indicating
that many small businesses have built
their business plans on the basis of
continued access to UNEs and have
worked to ensure that the transition
plans will give competing carriers a
sufficient opportunity to transition to
alternative facilities or arrangements.
This alternative represents a reasonable
accommodation for small entities and
others, which we believe will ultimately
result in an orderly and efficient
transition. Therefore, as set forth in the
Order, we have adopted plans to retain
unbundled access to dark fiber loops
and dark fiber dedicated transport for 18
months, at rates somewhat higher than
those at which a carrier had access to
those UNEs on June 15, 2004, and to
retain unbundled access to DS1 loops,
DS3 loops, DS1 dedicated transport,
DS3 dedicated transport, and mass
market local circuit switching for 12
months, again at rates somewhat higher
than those at which a carrier had access
to those UNEs on June 15, 2004. We
believe that these plans offer sufficient
time in which a competitive LEC can
determine which specific arrangements
must be transitioned and establish
alternative means of serving customers
currently served using those
arrangements. We therefore reject
proposals that we adopt longer
transitions, which we believe would be
unnecessary and therefore inappropriate
in the face of a Commission declining to
unbundle the element at issue.
Report to Congress
64. The Commission will send a copy
of the Order, including this FRFA, in a
report to be sent to Congress and the
Comptroller General pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act. In addition,
the Commission will send a copy of the
Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. In addition,
the Report and Order including the
FRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
Paperwork Reduction Act
65. This document does not contain
proposed information collection(s)
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified ‘‘information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Ordering Clauses
66. Accordingly, it is ordered that
pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205,
251, 252, 256, 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201–
205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and section
706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt, the Order on
Remand in CC Docket No. 01–338 and
WC Docket No. 04–313 is adopted, and
that part 51 of the Commission’s Rules,
47 CFR part 51, is amended as set forth
in the rule changes. The requirements of
this Order shall become effective on
March 11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3).
67. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that the
Emergency Joint Petition for Stay filed
in CC Docket Nos. 01–338, 96–98 and
98–147 by the Coalition for High-Speed
Online Internet Competition and
Enterprise on August 27, 2003; the Joint
Petition for Stay filed in CC Docket Nos.
01–338, 96–98 and 98–147 by BellSouth
Corporation, Qwest Communications
International, Inc., SBC
Communications Inc., the United States
Telecom Association, and the Verizon
telephone companies on September 4,
2003; the Emergency Petition for Stay
filed in CC Docket Nos. 01–338, 96–98
and 98–147 by Sage Telecom, Inc. on
September 22, 2003; the Emergency Stay
Petition filed in CC Docket Nos. 01–338,
96–98 and 98–147 by DCSI Corporation
et al. on September 22, 2003; the
Emergency Petition for Stay filed in CC
Docket Nos. 01–338, 96–98 and 98–147
by NuVox Communications, Inc. on
September 25, 2003; and the Petition for
Emergency Stay filed in CC Docket Nos.
01–338, 96–98 and 98–147 by
Allegiance Telecom, Inc., Cbeyond
Communications, LLC, El Paso Global
Networks, Focal Communications
Corporation, McLeodUSA
Telecommunications Services, Inc.,
Mpower Communications Corp. and
TDS Metrocom, LLC on September 26,
2003 are dismissed as moot.
68. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that the
Petition for Clarification or
Reconsideration filed in CC Docket Nos.
01–338, 96–98 and 98–147 by AT&T
Wireless on October 2, 2003; the
Petition for Reconsideration or
Clarification filed in CC Docket Nos. 01–
338, 96–98 and 98–147 by the Cellular
Telecommunications & Internet
Association on October 2, 2003; the
Petition for Reconsideration or
Clarification filed in CC Docket Nos. 01–
338, 96–98 and 98–147 by Nextel
Communications, Inc. on October 2,
2003; and the Petition for
Reconsideration filed in CC Docket Nos.
01–338, 96–98 and 98–147 by T-Mobile
USA, Inc. on October 2, 2003 are
dismissed as moot.
69. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that the
Petition for Reconsideration filed in CC
Docket Nos. 01–338, 96–98 and 98–147
by the National Association of State
Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA)
on October 2, 2003 is dismissed as
moot.
70. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that the
Petition for Clarification and/or Partial
Reconsideration filed in CC Docket Nos.
01–338, 96–98 and 98–147 by BellSouth
Corporation on October 2, 2003 is
dismissed as moot to the extent
indicated herein.
71. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that the
Petition for Reconsideration filed in CC
Docket No. 01–338 by TSI
Telecommunication Services, Inc. on
October 3, 2003 is dismissed as moot.
72. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that the
Petition for Waiver filed in CC Docket
Nos. 01–338, 96–98 and 98–147 by the
Telecommunications Regulatory Board
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8951
of Puerto Rico on December 30, 2003 is
dismissed.
73. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that the
Petition for Waiver filed in CC Docket
Nos. 01–338, 96–98 and 98–147 by
BellSouth Corporation on February 11,
2004 is dismissed as moot.
74. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that the
Petition for Rulemaking filed by Qwest
Communications International, Inc. on
March 29, 2004 is dismissed as moot.
75. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that the
Petition for Emergency Clarification
and/or Errata filed in WC Docket No.
04–313 and CC Docket No. 01–338 by
the Association for Local
Telecommunications Services, Alpheus
Communications, LP, Cbeyond
Communications, LLC, Conversent
Communications, LLC, GlobalCom, Inc.,
Mpower Communications Corp., New
Edge Networks, Inc., OneEighty
Communications, Inc., TDS Metrocom,
LLC on August 27, 2004 is dismissed as
moot.
76. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that the
Emergency Petition for Expedited
Determination that Competitive Local
Exchange Carriers are Impaired Without
DS1 UNE Loops filed in WC Docket No.
04–313 and CC Docket No. 01–338 by
XO Communications, Inc. on September
29, 2004 is denied.
77. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205, 251, 252, 256,
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154, 201–205, 251, 252, 256, 303(r) and
section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, that as of
the effective date of this Order, the
interim period described in the Interim
Order and NPRM, WC Docket No. 01–
338 and CC Docket No. 01–338, and all
requirements associated with that
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
8952
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
period, shall terminate and be
superseded by the transition periods
described in this Order.
78. It is further ordered, that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Order on Remand, including the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51
Communications common carriers,
and Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
Part 51 of title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
I
PART 51—INTERCONNECTION
1. The authority citation for part 51
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: Sections 1–5, 7, 201–05, 207–
09, 218, 225–27, 251–54, 256, 271, 303(r),
332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47
U.S.C. 151–55, 157, 201–05, 207–09, 218,
225–27, 251–54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 47
U.S.C. 157 note, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 51.5 is amended by
removing the definitions for ‘‘Nonqualifying service’’ and ‘‘Qualifying
service’’ and by adding five new
definitions in alphabetical order to read
as follows:
I
§ 51.5
Terms and Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Business line. A business line is an
incumbent LEC-owned switched access
line used to serve a business customer,
whether by the incumbent LEC itself or
by a competitive LEC that leases the line
from the incumbent LEC. The number of
business lines in a wire center shall
equal the sum of all incumbent LEC
business switched access lines, plus the
sum of all UNE loops connected to that
wire center, including UNE loops
provisioned in combination with other
unbundled elements. Among these
requirements, business line tallies:
(1) Shall include only those access
lines connecting end-user customers
with incumbent LEC end-offices for
switched services,
(2) Shall not include non-switched
special access lines,
(3) Shall account for ISDN and other
digital access lines by counting each 64
kbps-equivalent as one line. For
example, a DS1 line corresponds to 24
64 kbps-equivalents, and therefore to 24
‘‘business lines.’’
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
Fiber-based collocator. A fiber-based
collocator is any carrier, unaffiliated
with the incumbent LEC, that maintains
a collocation arrangement in an
incumbent LEC wire center, with active
electrical power supply, and operates a
fiber-optic cable or comparable
transmission facility that
(1) Terminates at a collocation
arrangement within the wire center;
(2) Leaves the incumbent LEC wire
center premises; and
(3) Is owned by a party other than the
incumbent LEC or any affiliate of the
incumbent LEC, except as set forth in
this paragraph. Dark fiber obtained from
an incumbent LEC on an indefeasible
right of use basis shall be treated as nonincumbent LEC fiber-optic cable. Two or
more affiliated fiber-based collocators in
a single wire center shall collectively be
counted as a single fiber-based
collocator. For purposes of this
paragraph, the term affiliate is defined
by 47 U.S.C. 153(1) and any relevant
interpretation in this Title.
*
*
*
*
*
Mobile wireless service. A mobile
wireless service is any mobile wireless
telecommunications service, including
any commercial mobile radio service.
*
*
*
*
*
Triennial Review Remand Order. The
Triennial Review Remand Order is the
Commission’s Order on Remand in CC
Docket Nos. 01–338 and 04–313
(released February 4, 2005).
*
*
*
*
*
Wire center. A wire center is the
location of an incumbent LEC local
switching facility containing one or
more central offices, as defined in the
Appendix to part 36 of this chapter. The
wire center boundaries define the area
in which all customers served by a
given wire center are located.
I 3. Section 51.309 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (g)(2) to
read as follows:
§ 51.309 Use of unbundled network
elements.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) A requesting telecommunications
carrier may not access an unbundled
network element for the exclusive
provision of mobile wireless services or
interexchange services.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) A requesting telecommunications
carrier that accesses and uses an
unbundled network element consistent
with paragraph (b) of this section may
provide any telecommunications
services over the same unbundled
network element.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(2) Shares part of the incumbent LEC’s
network with access services or inputs
for mobile wireless services and/or
interexchange services.
I 4. Section 51.317 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 51.317 Standards for requiring the
unbundling of network elements.
(a) Proprietary network elements. A
network element shall be considered to
be proprietary if an incumbent LEC can
demonstrate that it has invested
resources to develop proprietary
information or functionalities that are
protected by patent, copyright or trade
secret law. The Commission shall
undertake the following analysis to
determine whether a proprietary
network element should be made
available for purposes of section
251(c)(3) of the Act:
(1) Determine whether access to the
proprietary network element is
‘‘necessary.’’ A network element is
‘‘necessary’’ if, taking into consideration
the availability of alternative elements
outside the incumbent LEC’s network,
including self-provisioning by a
requesting telecommunications carrier
or acquiring an alternative from a thirdparty supplier, lack of access to the
network element precludes a requesting
telecommunications carrier from
providing the services that it seeks to
offer. If access is ‘‘necessary,’’ the
Commission may require the
unbundling of such proprietary network
element.
(2) In the event that such access is not
‘‘necessary,’’ the Commission may
require unbundling if it is determined
that:
(i) The incumbent LEC has
implemented only a minor modification
to the network element in order to
qualify for proprietary treatment;
(ii) The information or functionality
that is proprietary in nature does not
differentiate the incumbent LEC’s
services from the requesting
telecommunications carrier’s services;
or
(iii) Lack of access to such element
would jeopardize the goals of the Act.
(b) Non-proprietary network elements.
The Commission shall determine
whether a non-proprietary network
element should be made available for
purposes of section 251(c)(3) of the Act
by analyzing, at a minimum, whether
lack of access to a non-proprietary
network element ‘‘impairs’’ a requesting
carrier’s ability to provide the service it
seeks to offer. A requesting carrier’s
ability to provide service is ‘‘impaired’’
if, taking into consideration the
availability of alternative elements
outside the incumbent LEC’s network,
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
including elements self-provisioned by
the requesting carrier or acquired as an
alternative from a third-party supplier,
lack of access to that element poses a
barrier or barriers to entry, including
operational and economic barriers, that
are likely to make entry into a market
by a reasonably efficient competitor
uneconomic.
I 5. Section 51.319 is amended by
removing paragraphs (a)(7) and (e)(4),
redesignating paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9)
as (a)(7) and (a)(8), redesignating
paragraph (e)(5) as (e)(4), and by revising
paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), (d)(2),
(d)(4), (e) introductory text, (e)(1), (e)(2),
and (e)(3) to read as follows:
§ 51.319 Specific unbundling
requirements.
(a) * * *
(4) DS1 loops. (i) Subject to the cap
described in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this
section, an incumbent LEC shall provide
a requesting telecommunications carrier
with nondiscriminatory access to a DS1
loop on an unbundled basis to any
building not served by a wire center
with at least 60,000 business lines and
at least four fiber-based collocators.
Once a wire center exceeds both of these
thresholds, no future DS1 loop
unbundling will be required in that wire
center. A DS1 loop is a digital local loop
having a total digital signal speed of
1.544 megabytes per second. DS1 loops
include, but are not limited to, two-wire
and four-wire copper loops capable of
providing high-bit rate digital subscriber
line services, including T1 services.
(ii) Cap on unbundled DS1 loop
circuits. A requesting
telecommunications carrier may obtain
a maximum of ten unbundled DS1 loops
to any single building in which DS1
loops are available as unbundled loops.
(iii) Transition period for DS1 loop
circuits. For a 12-month period
beginning on the effective date of the
Triennial Review Remand Order, any
DS1 loop UNEs that a competitive LEC
leases from the incumbent LEC as of
that date, but which the incumbent LEC
is not obligated to unbundle pursuant to
paragraphs (a)(4)(i) or (a)(4)(ii) of this
section, shall be available for lease from
the incumbent LEC at a rate equal to the
higher of 115% of the rate the
requesting carrier paid for the loop
element on June 15, 2004, or, 115% of
the rate the state commission has
established or establishes, if any,
between June 16, 2004, and the effective
date of the Triennial Review Remand
Order, for that loop element. Where
incumbent LECs are not required to
provide unbundled DS1 loops pursuant
to paragraphs (a)(4)(i) or (a)(4)(ii) of this
section, requesting carriers may not
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
obtain new DS1 loops as unbundled
network elements.
(5) DS3 loops. (i) Subject to the cap
described in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this
section, an incumbent LEC shall provide
a requesting telecommunications carrier
with nondiscriminatory access to a DS3
loop on an unbundled basis to any
building not served by a wire center
with at least 38,000 business lines and
at least four fiber-based collocators.
Once a wire center exceeds both of these
thresholds, no future DS3 loop
unbundling will be required in that wire
center. A DS3 loop is a digital local loop
having a total digital signal speed of
44.736 megabytes per second.
(ii) Cap on unbundled DS3 loop
circuits. A requesting
telecommunications carrier may obtain
a maximum of a single unbundled DS3
loop to any single building in which
DS3 loops are available as unbundled
loops.
(iii) Transition period for DS3 loop
circuits. For a 12-month period
beginning on the effective date of the
Triennial Review Remand Order, any
DS3 loop UNEs that a competitive LEC
leases from the incumbent LEC as of
that date, but which the incumbent LEC
is not obligated to unbundle pursuant to
paragraphs (a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this
section, shall be available for lease from
the incumbent LEC at a rate equal to the
higher of 115% of the rate the
requesting carrier paid for the loop
element on June 15, 2004, or, 115% of
the rate the state commission has
established or establishes, if any,
between June 16, 2004, and the effective
date of the Triennial Review Remand
Order, for that loop element. Where
incumbent LECs are not required to
provide unbundled DS3 loops pursuant
to paragraphs (a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this
section, requesting carriers may not
obtain new DS3 loops as unbundled
network elements.
(6) Dark fiber loops. (i) An incumbent
LEC is not required to provide
requesting telecommunications carriers
with access to a dark fiber loop on an
unbundled basis. Dark fiber is fiber
within an existing fiber optic cable that
has not yet been activated through
optronics to render it capable of
carrying communications services.
(ii) Transition period for dark fiber
loop circuits. For an 18-month period
beginning on the effective date of the
Triennial Review Remand Order, any
dark fiber loop UNEs that a competitive
LEC leases from the incumbent LEC as
of that date shall be available for lease
from the incumbent LEC at a rate equal
to the higher of 115% of the rate the
requesting carrier paid for the loop
element on June 15, 2004, or, 115% of
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8953
the rate the state commission has
established or establishes, if any,
between June 16, 2004, and the effective
date of the Triennial Review Remand
Order, for that loop element. Requesting
carriers may not obtain new dark fiber
loops as unbundled network elements.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) DS0 capacity (i.e., mass market)
determinations. (i) An incumbent LEC is
not required to provide access to local
circuit switching on an unbundled basis
to requesting telecommunications
carriers for the purpose of serving enduser customers using DS0 capacity
loops.
(ii) Each requesting
telecommunications carrier shall
migrate its embedded base of end-user
customers off of the unbundled local
circuit switching element to an
alternative arrangement within 12
months of the effective date of the
Triennial Review Remand Order.
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraph
(d)(2)(i) of this section, for a 12-month
period from the effective date of the
Triennial Review Remand Order, an
incumbent LEC shall provide access to
local circuit switching on an unbundled
basis for a requesting carrier to serve its
embedded base of end-user customers.
The price for unbundled local circuit
switching in combination with
unbundled DS0 capacity loops and
shared transport obtained pursuant to
this paragraph shall be the higher of the
rate at which the requesting carrier
obtained that combination of network
elements on June 15, 2004 plus one
dollar, or, the rate the state public utility
commission establishes, if any, between
June 16, 2004, and the effective date of
the Triennial Review Remand Order, for
that combination of network elements,
plus one dollar. Requesting carriers may
not obtain new local switching as an
unbundled network element.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Other elements to be unbundled.
Elements relating to the local circuit
switching element shall be made
available on an unbundled basis to a
requesting carrier to the extent that the
requesting carrier is entitled to
unbundled local circuit switching as set
forth in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(i) An incumbent LEC shall provide a
requesting telecommunications carrier
with nondiscriminatory access to
signaling, call-related databases, and
shared transport facilities on an
unbundled basis, in accordance with
section 251(c)(3) of the Act and this
part, to the extent that local circuit
switching is required to be made
available pursuant to paragraph
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
8954
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(d)(2)(iii) of this section. These elements
are defined as follows:
(A) Signaling networks. Signaling
networks include, but are not limited to,
signaling links and signaling transfer
points.
(B) Call-related databases. Callrelated databases are defined as
databases, other than operations support
systems, that are used in signaling
networks for billing and collection, or
the transmission, routing, or other
provision of a telecommunications
service. Where a requesting
telecommunications carrier purchases
unbundled local circuit switching from
an incumbent LEC, an incumbent LEC
shall allow a requesting
telecommunications carrier to use the
incumbent LEC’s service control point
element in the same manner, and via the
same signaling links, as the incumbent
LEC itself.
(1) Call-related databases include, but
are not limited to, the calling name
database, 911 database, E911 database,
line information database, toll free
calling database, advanced intelligent
network databases, and downstream
number portability databases by means
of physical access at the signaling
transfer point linked to the unbundled
databases.
(2) Service management systems are
defined as computer databases or
systems not part of the public switched
network that interconnect to the service
control point and send to the service
control point information and call
processing instructions needed for a
network switch to process and complete
a telephone call, and provide a
telecommunications carrier with the
capability of entering and storing data
regarding the processing and completing
of a telephone call. Where a requesting
telecommunications carrier purchases
unbundled local circuit switching from
an incumbent LEC, the incumbent LEC
shall allow a requesting
telecommunications carrier to use the
incumbent LEC’s service management
systems by providing a requesting
telecommunications carrier with the
information necessary to enter correctly,
or format for entry, the information
relevant for input into the incumbent
LEC’s service management system,
including access to design, create, test,
and deploy advanced intelligent
network-based services at the service
management system, through a service
creation environment, that the
incumbent LEC provides to itself.
(3) An incumbent LEC shall not be
required to unbundle the services
created in the advanced intelligent
network platform and architecture that
qualify for proprietary treatment.
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
(C) Shared transport. Shared transport
is defined as the transmission facilities
shared by more than one carrier,
including the incumbent LEC, between
end office switches, between end office
switches and tandem switches, and
between tandem switches, in the
incumbent LEC network.
(ii) An incumbent LEC shall provide
a requesting telecommunications carrier
nondiscriminatory access to operator
services and directory assistance on an
unbundled basis, in accordance with
section 251(c)(3) of the Act and this
part, to the extent that local circuit
switching is required to be unbundled
by a state commission, if the incumbent
LEC does not provide that requesting
telecommunications carrier with
customized routing, or a compatible
signaling protocol, necessary to use
either a competing provider’s operator
services and directory assistance
platform or the requesting
telecommunications carrier’s own
platform. Operator services are any
automatic or live assistance to a
customer to arrange for billing or
completion, or both, of a telephone call.
Directory assistance is a service that
allows subscribers to retrieve telephone
numbers of other subscribers.
(e) Dedicated transport. An
incumbent LEC shall provide a
requesting telecommunications carrier
with nondiscriminatory access to
dedicated transport on an unbundled
basis, in accordance with section
251(c)(3) of the Act and this part, as set
forth in paragraphs (e) through (e)(4) of
this section. A ‘‘route’’ is a transmission
path between one of an incumbent
LEC’s wire centers or switches and
another of the incumbent LEC’s wire
centers or switches. A route between
two points (e.g., wire center or switch
‘‘A’’ and wire center or switch ‘‘Z’’) may
pass through one or more intermediate
wire centers or switches (e.g., wire
center or switch ‘‘X’’). Transmission
paths between identical end points (e.g.,
wire center or switch ‘‘A’’ and wire
center or switch ‘‘Z’’) are the same
‘‘route,’’ irrespective of whether they
pass through the same intermediate wire
centers or switches, if any.
(1) Definition. For purposes of this
section, dedicated transport includes
incumbent LEC transmission facilities
between wire centers or switches owned
by incumbent LECs, or between wire
centers or switches owned by
incumbent LECs and switches owned by
requesting telecommunications carriers,
including, but not limited to, DS1-,
DS3-, and OCn-capacity level services,
as well as dark fiber, dedicated to a
particular customer or carrier.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(2) Availability. (i) Entrance facilities.
An incumbent LEC is not obligated to
provide a requesting carrier with
unbundled access to dedicated transport
that does not connect a pair of
incumbent LEC wire centers.
(ii) Dedicated DS1 transport.
Dedicated DS1 transport shall be made
available to requesting carriers on an
unbundled basis as set forth below.
Dedicated DS1 transport consists of
incumbent LEC interoffice transmission
facilities that have a total digital signal
speed of 1.544 megabytes per second
and are dedicated to a particular
customer or carrier.
(A) General availability of DS1
transport. Incumbent LECs shall
unbundle DS1 transport between any
pair of incumbent LEC wire centers
except where, through application of
tier classifications described in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section, both
wire centers defining the route are Tier
1 wire centers. As such, an incumbent
LEC must unbundle DS1 transport if a
wire center at either end of a requested
route is not a Tier 1 wire center, or if
neither is a Tier 1 wire center.
(B) Cap on unbundled DS1 transport
circuits. A requesting
telecommunications carrier may obtain
a maximum of ten unbundled DS1
dedicated transport circuits on each
route where DS1 dedicated transport is
available on an unbundled basis.
(C) Transition period for DS1
transport circuits. For a 12-month
period beginning on the effective date of
the Triennial Review Remand Order,
any DS1 dedicated transport UNE that a
competitive LEC leases from the
incumbent LEC as of that date, but
which the incumbent LEC is not
obligated to unbundle pursuant to
paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(A) or (e)(2)(ii)(B) of
this section, shall be available for lease
from the incumbent LEC at a rate equal
to the higher of 115 percent of the rate
the requesting carrier paid for the
dedicated transport element on June 15,
2004, or, 115 percent of the rate the state
commission has established or
establishes, if any, between June 16,
2004, and the effective date of the
Triennial Review Remand Order, for
that dedicated transport element. Where
incumbent LECs are not required to
provide unbundled DS1 transport
pursuant to paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(A) or
(e)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, requesting
carriers may not obtain new DS1
transport as unbundled network
elements.
(iii) Dedicated DS3 transport.
Dedicated DS3 transport shall be made
available to requesting carriers on an
unbundled basis as set forth below.
Dedicated DS3 transport consists of
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 36 / Thursday, February 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
incumbent LEC interoffice transmission
facilities that have a total digital signal
speed of 44.736 megabytes per second
and are dedicated to a particular
customer or carrier.
(A) General availability of DS3
transport. Incumbent LECs shall
unbundle DS3 transport between any
pair of incumbent LEC wire centers
except where, through application of
tier classifications described in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section, both
wire centers defining the route are
either Tier 1 or Tier 2 wire centers. As
such, an incumbent LEC must unbundle
DS3 transport if a wire center on either
end of a requested route is a Tier 3 wire
center.
(B) Cap on unbundled DS3 transport
circuits. A requesting
telecommunications carrier may obtain
a maximum of 12 unbundled DS3
dedicated transport circuits on each
route where DS3 dedicated transport is
available on an unbundled basis.
(C) Transition period for DS3
transport circuits. For a 12-month
period beginning on the effective date of
the Triennial Review Remand Order,
any DS3 dedicated transport UNE that a
competitive LEC leases from the
incumbent LEC as of that date, but
which the incumbent LEC is not
obligated to unbundle pursuant to
paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) or (e)(2)(iii)(B)
of this section, shall be available for
lease from the incumbent LEC at a rate
equal to the higher of 115 percent of the
rate the requesting carrier paid for the
dedicated transport element on June 15,
2004, or, 115 percent of the rate the state
commission has established or
establishes, if any, between June 16,
2004, and the effective date of the
Triennial Review Remand Order, for
that dedicated transport element. Where
incumbent LECs are not required to
provide unbundled DS3 transport
pursuant to paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) or
(e)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, requesting
carriers may not obtain new DS3
transport as unbundled network
elements.
(iv) Dark fiber transport. Dedicated
dark fiber transport shall be made
available to requesting carriers on an
unbundled basis as set forth below. Dark
fiber transport consists of unactivated
optical interoffice transmission
facilities.
(A) General availability of dark fiber
transport. Incumbent LECs shall
unbundle dark fiber transport between
any pair of incumbent LEC wire centers
except where, though application of tier
classifications described in paragraph
(e)(3) of this section, both wire centers
defining the route are either Tier 1 or
Tier 2 wire centers. As such, an
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:17 Feb 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
incumbent LEC must unbundle dark
fiber transport if a wire center on either
end of a requested route is a Tier 3 wire
center.
(B) Transition period for dark fiber
transport circuits. For an 18-month
period beginning on the effective date of
the Triennial Review Remand Order,
any dark fiber dedicated transport UNE
that a competitive LEC leases from the
incumbent LEC as of that date, but
which the incumbent LEC is not
obligated to unbundle pursuant to
paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(A) or (e)(2)(iv)(B) of
this section, shall be available for lease
from the incumbent LEC at a rate equal
to the higher of 115 percent of the rate
the requesting carrier paid for the
dedicated transport element on June 15,
2004, or, 115 percent of the rate the state
commission has established or
establishes, if any, between June 16,
2004, and the effective date of the
Triennial Review Remand Order, for
that dedicated transport element. Where
incumbent LECs are not required to
provide unbundled dark fiber transport
pursuant to paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(A) or
(e)(2)(iv)(B) of this section, requesting
carriers may not obtain new dark fiber
transport as unbundled network
elements.
(3) Wire center tier structure. For
purposes of this section, incumbent LEC
wire centers shall be classified into
three tiers, defined as follows:
(i) Tier 1 wire centers are those
incumbent LEC wire centers that
contain at least four fiber-based
collocators, at least 38,000 business
lines, or both. Tier 1 wire centers also
are those incumbent LEC tandem
switching locations that have no lineside switching facilities, but
nevertheless serve as a point of traffic
aggregation accessible by competitive
LECs. Once a wire center is determined
to be a Tier 1 wire center, that wire
center is not subject to later
reclassification as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 wire
center.
(ii) Tier 2 wire centers are those
incumbent LEC wire centers that are not
Tier 1 wire centers, but contain at least
3 fiber-based collocators, at least 24,000
business lines, or both. Once a wire
center is determined to be a Tier 2 wire
center, that wire center is not subject to
later reclassification as a Tier 3 wire
center.
(iii) Tier 3 wire centers are those
incumbent LEC wire centers that do not
meet the criteria for Tier 1 or Tier 2 wire
centers.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–3511 Filed 2–23–05; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 05–299; MM Docket No. 02–63, RM–
10398]
Radio Broadcasting Service; Burbank
and Walla Walla, WA
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the
request of New Northwest Broadcasters,
LLC, reallots Channel 256C1 from Walla
Walla to Burbank, Washington, and
modifies Station KUJ–FM’s license
accordingly. See 67 FR 17669, April 11,
2002. We also dismiss the one-step
upgrade application (File No. BPH–
20041008ACV) filed by New Northwest
Broadcasters, LLC, requesting the
substitution of Channel 256C1 for 256C2
at Walla Walla, Washington, as moot.
Channel 256C1 can be reallotted to
Burbank in compliance with the
Commission’s minimum distance
separation requirements at petitioner’s
presently licensed site. The coordinates
for Channel 256C1 at Burbank are 45–
57–22 North Latitude and 118–41–11
West Longitude.
DATES: Effective March 21, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau,
(202) 418–2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MM Docket No. 02–63,
adopted February 2, 2005, and released
February 4, 2005. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for
inspection and copying during regular
business hours at the FCC’s Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445
Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text of this decision 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 1–800–378–3160 or https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission
will send a copy of this Report and
Order in a report to be sent to Congress
and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Sfmt 4700
8955
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 36 (Thursday, February 24, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8940-8955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3511]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 51
[WC Docket No. 04-313, CC Docket No. 01-338; FCC 04-290]
Unbundled Access to Network Elements; Review of the Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts rules concerning the unbundling obligations of
incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), with respect to the dedicated
transport, high-capacity loop, and mass market circuit switching
elements of their networks. This document also adopts appropriate
transition periods to allow competitive LECs sufficient time to migrate
their services to alternative facilities, or to negotiate alternative
commercial arrangements, where unbundled network elements (UNEs)
[[Page 8941]]
must no longer be made available pursuant to our rules. The rules set
forth in this Order on Remand encourage the innovation and investment
that come from facilities-based competition. By implementing the
Commission's unbundling authority pursuant to section 251 of the
Communications Act, in a targeted manner, this Order imposes unbundling
obligations only in those situations where the Commission finds that
carriers genuinely are impaired without access to particular network
elements and where unbundling does not frustrate sustainable,
facilities-based competition. This approach satisfies the guidance of
courts to weigh the costs of unbundling, and ensures that the
Commission's rules provide the right incentives for both incumbent and
competitive LECs to invest rationally in the telecommunications market
in the way that best allows for innovation and sustainable competition.
DATES: Effective March 11, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. See Supplementary Information for further filing
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Boone, Attorney-Advisor, Wireline
Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0064 or via the Internet at
erin.boone@fcc.gov. The complete text of this Order on Remand 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. Further information may also be
obtained by calling the Wireline Competition Bureau's TTY number: (202)
418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
on Remand in WC Docket No. 04-313 and CC Docket No. 01-338, adopted
December 15, 2004, and released February 4, 2005. The full text of this
document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160. It is also
available on the Commission's Web site at https://www.fcc.gov.
Synopsis of the Order on Remand
1. Background. The Commission took several steps to avoid excessive
disruption of the local telecommunications market while it wrote new
rules following the D.C. Circuit's decision in United States Telecom
Association v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 160 L.
Ed 2d 223 (2004), which vacated and remanded significant portions of
the unbundling rules set forth in the Commission's Triennial Review
Order, 68 FR 52276 (Sept. 2, 2003), CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98, 98-
147, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 16978 (2003). One of these steps
included the release, on August 20, 2004, of Unbundled Access to
Network Elements; Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 69 FR 55111, 69 FR 55128 (Sept. 13,
2004), CC Docket No. 01-338, WC Docket No. 04-313, Order and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 16783, 16785-87, paras. 3-7 (2004)
(Interim Order and Triennial Remand NPRM). The Interim Order required
carriers to adhere to the commitments they made in their
interconnection agreements, applicable statements of generally
available terms (SGATs), and relevant state tariffs that were in effect
on June 15, 2004 for an ``interim period'' beginning on the effective
date of the Interim Order and NPRM and ending on the earlier of (1) six
months after that effective date or (2) the effective date of final
rules issued in this proceeding. The Commission also set forth and
sought comment on a transition plan to govern the period following the
interim period. The associated Triennial Remand NPRM sought comment on
how to respond to the USTA II decision in its revised final rules. In
this Order on Remand, the Commission promulgates those final rules
based on guidance from the courts and comment received in response to
the Triennial Remand NPRM.
2. Unbundling Framework. In the USTA II decision, the D.C. Circuit
upheld the general impairment framework the Commission established in
the Triennial Review Order, but sought several clarifications and, in
several cases, criticized the manner in which the Commission applied
that framework to particular elements. In response to those criticisms,
the Commission clarifies the impairment standard adopted in the
Triennial Review Order in one respect and modifies its unbundling
framework in three other respects. First, the Commission clarifies that
it evaluates impairment with regard to the capabilities of a reasonably
efficient competitor. Second, it sets aside the Triennial Review
Order's ``qualifying service'' interpretation of section 251(d)(2), but
prohibits the use of UNEs for the exclusive provision of
telecommunications services in the mobile wireless and long-distance
markets, which the Commission previously has found to be competitive.
Third, the Commission notes that in applying its impairment test, it
draws reasonable inferences regarding the prospects for competition in
one geographic market based on the state of competition in other,
similar markets. Fourth, it considers the appropriate role of tariffed
incumbent LEC services in its unbundling framework, and determines that
in the context of the local exchange market, a general rule prohibiting
access to UNEs whenever a requesting carrier is able to compete using
an incumbent LEC's tariffed offering would be inappropriate.
3. Dedicated Interoffice Transport. In this Order, the Commission
tailors its unbundling requirements regarding dedicated interoffice
transport narrowly to ensure that unbundling obligations apply only
where competitive deployment of these facilities is not economic. The
Commission finds that competing carriers are impaired without access to
DS1 transport except on routes connecting a pair of wire centers, where
both wire centers contain either at least four fiber-based collocators
or at least 38,000 business access lines. The Commission also finds
that competing carriers are impaired without access to DS3 or dark
fiber transport except on routes connecting a pair of wire centers,
each of which contains at least three fiber-based collocators or at
least 24,000 business lines. Finally, the Commission finds that
competing carriers are not impaired without access to entrance
facilities connecting an incumbent LEC's network with a competitive
LEC's network in any instance. In addition to these findings, the
Commission adopts a 12-month plan for competing carriers to transition
away from use of DS1- and DS3-capacity dedicated transport where they
are not impaired, and an 18-month plan to govern transitions away from
dark fiber transport. These transition plans apply only to the embedded
customer base, and do not permit competitive LECs to add new dedicated
transport UNEs in the absence of impairment. The Commission also
requires that during the transition periods, competitive carriers
retain access to unbundled dedicated transport at a rate equal to the
higher of (1) 115% of the rate the requesting carrier paid for the
transport element on June 15, 2004, or (2) 115% of the rate the state
commission has established or establishes, if any, between June 16,
2004 and the effective date of this Order.
4. High-Capacity Loops. The Commission finds that competitive
[[Page 8942]]
LECs are impaired without access to DS3-capacity loops except in any
building within the service area of a wire center containing 38,000 or
more business lines and four or more fiber-based collocators. In
addition, the Commission finds that competitive LECs are impaired
without access to DS1-capacity loops except in any building within the
service area of a wire center containing 60,000 or more business lines
and four or more fiber-based collocators. Finally, the Commission finds
that competitive LECs are not impaired without access to dark fiber
loops in any instance. In addition to these findings, the Commission
adopts a 12-month plan for competing carriers to transition away from
use of DS1- and DS3-capacity loops where they are not impaired, and an
18-month plan to govern transitions away from dark fiber loops. These
transition plans apply only to the embedded customer base, and do not
permit competitive LECs to add new high-capacity loop UNEs in the
absence of impairment. The Commission requires that during the
transition periods, competitive carriers retain access to unbundled
facilities at a rate equal to the higher of (1) 115% of the rate the
requesting carrier paid for the high-capacity loop element on June 15,
2004, or (2) 115% of the rate the state commission has established or
establishes, if any, between June 16, 2004 and the effective date of
this Order.
5. Mass Market Local Circuit Switching. In this Order, the
Commission finds that incumbent LECs have no obligation to provide
competitive LECs with unbundled access to mass market local circuit
switching. The Commission concludes that competitive LECs have deployed
a significant, growing number of their own switches, often using new,
more-efficient technologies such as packet switches, and could do so in
areas they do not yet serve as well. Thus, the Commission concludes
that requesting carriers in most cases are not impaired without access
to local circuit switching. Moreover, the Commission finds that
regardless of any limited potential impairment requesting carriers may
still face, the continued availability of unbundled mass market
switching would impose significant costs in the form of decreased
investment incentives. It therefore determines, pursuant to section
251(d)(2)'s ``at a minimum'' authority, not to require unbundled access
to mass market switching even in those areas where competitive LECs
might face impairment. In addition, the Commission adopts a 12-month
plan for competing carriers to transition away from use of unbundled
mass market local circuit switching. This transition plan applies only
to the embedded customer base, and does not permit competitive LECs to
add new mass market switching UNEs. During the transition period, the
Commission states that competitive carriers will retain access to the
unbundled network element platform (i.e., the combination of an
unbundled loop, unbundled local circuit switching, and shared
transport) at a rate equal to the higher of (1) the rate at which the
requesting carrier leased that combination of elements on June 15,
2004, plus one dollar, or (2) the rate the state public utility
commission establishes, if any, between June 16, 2004, and the
effective date of this Order, for this combination of elements, plus
one dollar.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
6. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Interim Order and NPRM in this proceeding. The
Commission sought written comment on the proposals in the Interim Order
and NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The present Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) addresses comments received on the IRFA and
conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Order on Remand
7. This Order responds to the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia's USTA II decision, which vacated and remanded
significant portions of the Triennial Review Order's unbundling rules.
Based on the record compiled in response to the Interim Order and NPRM,
the Commission adopted, in the Triennial Review Order, new unbundling
rules implementing section 251 of the 1996 Act. The Triennial Review
Order reinterpreted the statute's ``impair'' standard and reevaluated
incumbent LECs' unbundling obligations with regard to particular
elements. Various parties appealed the Triennial Review Order, and on
March 2, 2004, the D.C. Circuit decided USTA II, vacating and remanding
several of the Triennial Review Order's unbundling rules. In this
Order, we address the remanded issues and take additional steps to
encourage the innovation and investment that results from facilities-
based competition.
8. Specifically, this Order clarifies the Triennial Review Order's
impairment standard in one respect and modifies its application in
three respects. First, we clarify that we evaluate impairment with
regard to the capabilities of a reasonably efficient competitor.
Second, we set aside the Triennial Review Order's ``qualifying
service'' interpretation of section 251(d)(2), but prohibit the use of
UNEs for the provision of telecommunications services in the mobile
wireless and long-distance markets, which we previously have found to
be competitive. Third, in applying our impairment test, we draw
reasonable inferences regarding the prospects for competition in one
geographic market based on the state of competition in other, similar
markets. Fourth, we consider the appropriate role of tariffed incumbent
LEC services in our unbundling framework, and determine that in the
context of the local exchange markets, a general rule prohibiting
access to UNEs whenever a requesting carrier is able to compete using
an incumbent LEC's tariffed offering would be inappropriate. We then
apply this revised unbundling framework to the dedicated transport
network element, the high-capacity loop network element, and the mass
market local circuit switching network element. In each case, we adopt
a result that will promote the deployment of competitive facilities
wherever possible, spreading the benefits of facilities-based
competition to market entrants and end-user customers alike, including
small businesses falling into each category.
Summary and Discussion of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
in Response to IRFA
9. In this section, we respond to comments filed in response to the
IRFA. To the extent we received comments raising general small business
concerns during this proceeding, those comments are discussed
throughout the Order and are summarized in part E, below.
10. First, we reject TeleTruth's contention that the Commission
fails to assess the impact of its unbundling rules on small Internet
Service Providers (ISPs), and that this failure violates the RFA.
Although we understand that our rules will have an economic impact in
many sectors of the economy, including the ISP market, the RFA only
requires the Commission to consider the impact on entities directly
subject to our rules. The RFA is not applicable to ISPs because, as we
previously noted, ISPs are only indirectly affected by our unbundling
actions and were not formally included in the IRFA or formally included
in this FRFA. In the interest of ensuring notice
[[Page 8943]]
to all interested parties and out of an abundance of caution, we have
previously included ISPs among the entities potentially indirectly
affected by our unbundling rules, although we have been explicit in
emphasizing that ISPs are only indirectly affected by these rules. On
this subject, we note that the D.C. Circuit ``has consistently held
that the RFA imposes no obligation to conduct a small entity impact
analysis of effects on entities which [the agency conducting the
analysis] does not regulate.'' Thus, we emphasize that the RFA imposes
no independent obligation to examine the effects an agency's action
will have on the customers, clients, or end users of the companies it
regulates--including ISPs--unless such entities are, themselves,
subject to regulation by the agency. In any event, we have considered
the needs of small business customers of competitive (and incumbent)
LECs throughout this Order and previous Orders, in each case choosing
the outcome that will foster facilities-based competition and the
benefits such competition will bring to small businesses and other
consumers of telecommunications.
11. We also reject TeleTruth's argument that the Commission
violates the RFA by relying on outdated 1997 Census Bureau data to
identify the number of ISPs potentially affected by our final rules in
the IRFA. The 1997 Census Bureau data were and still are the most
current data available. According to TeleTruth, data compiled by both
the SBA and Boardwatch/ISP-Planet, an ISP-focused periodical, indicate
that the number of ISPs is close to 7,000, rather than the 2,751 ISPs
identified by the IRFA. Although TeleTruth cites to higher numbers, the
Census Bureau has not released the more recent (2002) results for
telecommunications providers or for ISPs. Thus, the IRFA in this
proceeding and this FRFA appropriately rely on the most up-to-date 1997
Census Bureau data and therefore comply with the RFA.
12. We disagree with TeleTruth's claim that by relying on 1997
Census Bureau data in the IRFA, the Commission violates the Data
Quality Act (DQA). We conclude that the IRFA's description of the ISP
marketplace based on 1997 Census Bureau data was consistent with the
Commission's DQA guidelines. As an initial matter, the DQA requires
federal agencies to issue information quality guidelines ensuring the
quality, utility, objectivity and integrity of information that they
disseminate, and to provide mechanisms by which affected persons can
take action to correct any errors reflected in such information. In
2002, the Commission adopted guidelines implementing the DQA stating
that it is dedicated to ensuring that all data that it disseminates
reflect a level of quality commensurate with the nature of the
information. Specifically, these guidelines require the Commission to
review and substantiate the quality of information before it is
disseminated to the public and describe the administrative mechanisms
allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information
that does not comply with the guidelines. By relying on the most recent
Census Bureau data, the Commission complied with DQA guidelines as the
Census Bureau is the leading source of high-quality data of the sort
set forth in the IRFA--and a source on which we have consistently
relied. In this regard, we note that the Census Bureau data and SBA
generic small business size standards track each other precisely, as
intended by both the Census Bureau and SBA. Moreover, as indicated
above, we have updated this FRFA based on the recent preliminary 2002
Census Bureau Industry Series data, mitigating the concern that the
data set out in the IRFA was too old to be of use in assessing the
impact our conclusions might have on small entities.
13. We also reject TeleTruth's argument that the Commission
violates the RFA by failing to conduct proper outreach to small
businesses for purposes of compiling a comprehensive record in this
proceeding. The Commission has satisfied its RFA obligation to assure
that small companies were able to participate in this proceeding.
Specifically, the RFA requires the Commission to ``assure that small
entities have been given an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking,'' and proposes as example five ``reasonable techniques''
that an agency might employ to do so. In this proceeding, the
Commission has complied with the RFA by employing several of these
techniques: it (1) has published a ``notice of proposed rulemaking in
publications likely to be obtained by small entities''; (2) has
``inclu[ded] * * * a statement that the proposed rule may have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities''
in the Interim Order and NPRM; (3) has solicited comments over its
computer network; and (4) has acted ``to reduce the cost or complexity
of participation in the rulemaking by small entities'' by, among other
things, facilitating electronic submission of comments.
14. We also disagree with commenters that claim that the Commission
did not specifically consider the impact of eliminating UNEs on small
businesses or describe alternatives to minimize any impact in the IRFA.
Although the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (SBA
Advocacy) recommends that we issue a revised IRFA to account for the
impact our rules might have on small competitive LECs, we believe it is
not necessary since the Interim Order and NPRM explained in detail the
ruling of the D.C. Circuit in USTA II, which gave rise to this
proceeding; posed specific questions to commenters regarding the proper
implementation of that decision; and solicited comment from all
parties. While the NPRM did not specify particular results the
Commission would consider--and the IRFA therefore did not catalogue the
effects that such particular results might have on small businesses--
the Commission provided notice to parties regarding the range of policy
outcomes that might result from this order. As indicated above, a
summary of the Interim Order and NPRM was published in the Federal
Register, and we believe that such publication constitutes appropriate
notice to small businesses subject to this Commission's regulation.
Indeed, far from discouraging small entities from participating, the
Interim Order and NPRM and the associated IRFA elicited extensive
comment on issues affecting small businesses. These comments have
enabled us to consider the concerns of competitive LECs throughout this
order. Moreover, in Part C, below, we attempt to estimate the number of
competitive LECs that will be affected by the rules we adopt herein. We
therefore reject arguments that small entities were prejudiced by any
lack of specificity regarding specific results potentially resulting
from this proceeding.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Rules Would Apply
15. 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 rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. 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
[[Page 8944]]
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
16. In this section, we further describe and estimate the number of
small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by our
action. The most reliable source of information regarding the total
numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as
well as the number of commercial wireless entities, appears to be the
data that the Commission publishes in its Trends in Telephone Service
report. The SBA has developed small business size standards for
wireline and wireless small businesses within the three commercial
census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, Paging, and
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. Under these categories,
a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using
the above size standards and others, we discuss the total estimated
numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our actions.
17. We have included small incumbent LECs 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.'' SBA
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not
dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not
``national'' in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs
in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no
effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
18. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in
this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
2,201 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional
24 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this
size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small.
19. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
incumbent local exchange services (LECs). 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, 1,310 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local
exchange services. Of these 1,310 carriers, an estimated 1,025 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 285 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent
local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our
proposed action.
20. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, 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, 563 carriers have reported that they are engaged in
the provision of either CAP services or competitive LEC services. Of
these 563 carriers, an estimated 472 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
91 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 14 carriers have
reported that they are ``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and all 14
are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 37
carriers have reported that they are ``Other Local Service Providers.''
Of the 37, an estimated 36 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive
access providers, ``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other
Local Service Providers'' are small entities that may be affected by
our proposed action.
21. 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, 281 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange
service. Of these, an estimated 254 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
27 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.
22. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
OSPs. 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, 23 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the
provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities
that may be affected by our proposed action.
23. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a size
standard for a small business within the category of Telecommunications
Resellers. Under that SBA size standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 32
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of prepaid
calling cards. Of these 32 companies, an estimated 31 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that the great majority of prepaid calling
card providers are small entities that may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted herein.
24. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable
to ``Other Toll Carriers.'' This category includes toll carriers that
do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, OSPs,
prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll
resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Commission's data, 65 companies reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll
services. Of these 65 companies, an estimated 62 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most ``Other Toll Carriers'' are small
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
25. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic
census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.''
[[Page 8945]]
Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau
data for 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in this category, total,
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,303 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and
associated small business size standard, the great majority of firms
can be considered small. For the census category Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that
there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees
or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the great
majority of firms can, again, be considered small.
26. Broadband PCS. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The Commission defined ``small entity'' for
Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40
million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an
additional classification for ``very small business'' was added and is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three
calendar years.'' These standards defining ``small entity'' 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. On March 23,
1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses.
There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the
Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses
in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29
qualified as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. Subsequent events,
concerning Auction 305, including judicial and agency determinations,
resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for
grant. In addition, we note that, as a general matter, the number of
winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an
auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses
currently in service. In addition, the Commission does not generally
track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
27. Narrowband Personal Communications Services (PCS). The
Commission held an auction for Narrowband PCS licenses that commenced
on July 25, 1994, and closed on July 29, 1994. A second auction
commenced on October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994. For
purposes of the first two Narrowband PCS auctions, ``small businesses''
were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar
years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions, the Commission
awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small
businesses. To ensure meaningful participation by small business
entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered small
business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A
``small business'' is an entity that, together with affiliates and
controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
preceding years of not more than $40 million. A ``very small business''
is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests,
has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more
than $15 million. The SBA has approved these small business size
standards. A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and closed on
October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan Trading
Areas and nationwide) licenses. Three of these claimed status as a
small or very small entity and won 311 licenses.
28. 220 MHz Radio Service--Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service
has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted
by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-
nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized
to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent
220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees
that are small businesses, we apply the small business size standard
under the SBA rules applicable to ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications'' companies. This category provides that a small
business is a wireless company employing no more than 1,500 persons.
According to the Census Bureau data for 1997, only twelve firms out of
a total of 1,238 such firms that operated for the entire year in 1997,
had 1,000 or more employees. If this general ratio continues in the
context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, the Commission estimates that
nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's small
business standard.
29. 220 MHz Radio Service--Phase II Licensees. The 220 MHz service
has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is
a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz
Third Report and Order, we adopted a small business size standard for
defining ``small'' and ``very small'' businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits and installment payments. This small business standard
indicates that a ``small business'' is an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
not exceeding $15 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 do not
exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved
these small size standards. Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on
September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. In the first
auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized
geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area
Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908
licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Thirty-nine small businesses won 373
licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. A second auction included 225
licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies
claiming small business status won 158 licenses. A third auction
included four licenses: 2 BEA licenses and 2 EAG licenses in the 220
MHz Service. No small or very small business won any of these licenses.
30. 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
[[Page 8946]]
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 began on December 5,
1995, and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they
qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won
263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR
auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was
completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified
as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 38
geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR
band. A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January 10,
2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One
bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.
31. Common Carrier Paging. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census
categories of ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under
this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data
for 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in this category, total, that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms had employment of
1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small
business size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered
small.
32. In the Paging Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a
size standard for ``small businesses'' for purposes of determining
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments. A small business is an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has
approved this definition. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area
(MEA) licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2,
2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold. Fifty-seven
companies claiming small business status won 440 licenses. An auction
of MEA and Economic Area (EA) licenses commenced on October 30, 2001,
and closed on December 5, 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323
were sold. One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business
status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874
licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the
51 MEAs commenced on May 13, 2003, and closed on May 28, 2003. Seventy-
seven bidders claiming small or very small business status won 2,093
licenses. Currently, there are approximately 74,000 Common Carrier
Paging licenses. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone
Service, 379 private and common carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either paging or ``other mobile'' services.
Of these, we estimate that 373 are small, under the SBA-approved small
business size standard. We estimate that the majority of common carrier
paging providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition.
33. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order,
we 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. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA)
licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21,
2000. 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 on February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 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.
34. 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 BETRS. The Commission uses the SBA's small business size standard
applicable to ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,'' 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 adopted herein.
35. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not
adopted a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service. We will use SBA's small business size standard
applicable to ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,'' 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 small business
size standard.
36. Aviation and Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the
aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF)
marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-
indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator
transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size
standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For
purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business
size standard for the category ``Cellular and Other
Telecommunications,'' which is 1,500 or fewer employees. Most
applicants for recreational licenses are individuals. Approximately
581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees
operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage
requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes of our evaluations
in this analysis, we estimate that there are up to approximately
712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or individuals) under the
SBA standard. In addition, between December 3, 1998 and December 14,
1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in
the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz
(coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission
defined a ``small'' business as an entity that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for
the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million dollars. In
addition, a ``very small'' business is one that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for
the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million dollars. There are
approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the
Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as ``small''
businesses under the above special small business size standards.
37. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include
common
[[Page 8947]]
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 ``Cellular and Other Telecommunications,'' which is
1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission does not have data specifying
the number of these licensees that have 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 up to 22,015
common carrier fixed licensees and up to 61,670 private operational-
fixed 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 noted, however, that the common
carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities.
38. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on
several ultra high frequencies (UHF) television broadcast channels that
are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states
bordering the Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55
licensees in this service. We are unable to estimate at this time the
number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small
business size standard for ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications'' services. Under that SBA small business size
standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
39. 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 commenced on April 15, 1997 and
closed on April 25, 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. An auction for
one license in the 1670-1674 MHz band commenced on April 30, 2003 and
closed the same day. One license was awarded. The winning bidder was
not a small entity.
40. 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 on April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The
18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849 licenses.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz
licensees are small entities that may be affected by the rules and
policies proposed herein.
41. Multipoint Distribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution Service, and Instructional Television Fixed Service.
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, often
referred to as ``wireless cable,'' transmit video programming to
subscribers using the microwave frequencies of the Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS) and Instructional Television Fixed Service
(ITFS). In connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined
``small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has
average gross annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for
the preceding three calendar years. The SBA has approved of this
standard. The MDS auction resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining
licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67
auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this time,
we estimate that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48
remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses
that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS
licensees that have gross revenues that are not more than $40 million
and are thus considered small entities.
42. In addition, the SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which includes all
such companies generating $12.5 million or less in annual receipts.
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311
firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.
Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million,
and an additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less
than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
providers in this service category are small businesses that may be
affected by the proposed rules and policies.
43. Finally, while SBA approval for a Commission-defined small
business size standard applicable to ITFS is pending, educational
institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. There are
currently 2,032 ITFS licensees, and all but 100 of these licenses are
held by educational institutions. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at
least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small businesses.
44. 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 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS)
licenses began on February 18, 1998 and closed on March 25, 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. On March 27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses;
there were 32 small and very small business winners that won 119
licenses.
45. 218-219 MHz Service. The first auction of 218-219 MHz
(previously referred to as the Interactive and Video Data Service or
IVDS) spectrum resulted in 178 entities winning licenses for 594
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Of the 594 licenses, 567 were
won by 167 entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction,
we defined a small business as an entity that, together with its
affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal
income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more than $2
million in
[[Page 8948]]
annual profits each year for the previous two years. In the 218-219 MHz
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, we defined a small
business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or
entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates,
has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the
preceding three years. A very small business is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold
interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual
gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.
The SBA has approved of these definitions. At this time, we cannot
estimate the number of licenses that will be won by entities qualifying
as small or very small businesses under our rules in future auctions of
218-219 MHz spectrum. Given the success of small businesses in the
previous auction, and the prevalence of small businesses in the
subscription television services and message communications industries,
we assume for purposes of this analysis that in future auctions, many,
and perhaps all, of the licenses may be awarded to small businesses.
46. 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 ``Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications'' companies. This category provides
that such a company is small if it employs no more than 1,500 persons.
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 977 firms in this
category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size
standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. These
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 less than 1,500 employees, though this may
change in the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only one
incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity.
47. 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.
48. Internet Service Providers. While ISPs are only indirectly
affected by our present actions, and ISPs are therefore not formally
included within this present FRFA, we have addressed them informally to
create a fuller record and to recognize their participation in this
proceeding. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
ISPs. This category comprises establishments ``primarily engaged in
providing direct access through telecommunications networks to
computer-held information compiled or published by others.'' Under the
SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual
receipts of $21 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for
1997, there were 2,751 firms in this category that operated for the
entire year. Of these, 2,659 firms had annual receipts of under $10
million, and an additional 67 firms had receipts of between $10 million
and $24,999,999. Thus, under this size standard, the great majority of
firms can be considered small entities.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
49. Pursuant to sections 251(c) and (d) of the Act, incumbent LECs,
including those that qualify as small entities, are required to provide
nondiscriminatory access to UNEs to requesting telecommunications
carriers in certain circumstances. In this Order, we modify our
unbundling rules, as described above. Specifically, we conclude, except
as set forth in other Commission orders, that requesting carriers: (1)
Shall be afforded unbundled access to DS1-capacity dedicated transport
except on routes connecting a pair of wire centers, where both wire
centers contain at least four fiber-based collocators or at least
38,000 business access lines; (2) shall be afforded unbundled access to
DS3-capacity dedicated transport except on routes connecting a pair of
wire centers, each of which contains at least three fiber-based
collocators or at least 24,000 business lines; (3) shall be afforded
unbundled access to dark fiber dedicated transport except on routes
connecting a pair of wire centers, each of which contains at least
three fiber-based collocators or at least 24,000 business lines; (4)
shall not be afforded unbundled access to entrance facilities in any
instance; (5) shall be afforded unbundled access to DS1-capacity loops
except in any building within the service area of wire centers with
60,000 or more business lines and 4 or more fiber-based collocators;
(6) shall be afforded unbundled access to DS3-capacity loops except in
any building within the service area of wire centers with 38,000 or
more business lines and 4 or more fiber-based collocators; (7) shall
not be afforded unbundled access to dark fiber loops in any instance;
and (8) shall not be afforded unbundled access to mass market local
circuit switching in any instance. We also set forth specific
transition plans to govern competitive carriers' migration from UNEs to
alternative arrangements, where necessary. The various compliance
requirements contained in this Order will require the use of
engineering, technical, operational, accounting, billing, and legal
skills. The carriers that are affected by these requirements already
possess these skills.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
50. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
51. In this Order, we adopt rules implementing section 251(c)(3) of
the Communications Act, which requires that incumbent LECs make
elements of their networks available on an unbundled basis to new
entrants at cost-based rates, pursuant to standards set out in section
251(d)(2). As noted above, these rules respond to the D.C. Circuit's
decision in USTA II. Particularly, we focus on those items that the
court remanded for our consideration. Our actions will affect both
telecommunications carriers that request access to UNEs and the
incumbent LECs that must provide access to UNEs under section
251(c)(3).
[[Page 8949]]
52. In arriving at the conclusions described above, the Commission
considered various alternatives, which it rejected or accepted for the
reasons set forth in the body of this Order, and made certain changes
to the rules to reduce undue regulatory burdens, consistent with the
Communications Act and with guidance received from the courts. These
efforts to reduce regulatory burden will affect both large and small
carriers. The significant alternatives that commenters discussed and
that we considered are as follows.
53. Reasonably Efficient Competitor. In this Order, we clarify
that, in assessing impairment pursuant to the standard set forth in the
Triennial Review Order, we presume a reasonably efficient competitor.
Specifically, we presume that a requesting carrier will use reasonably
efficient technology and we consider all the revenue opportunities that
such a competitor can reasonably expect to gain over the facilities,
taking into account limitations on entrants' ability to provide
multiple services. This clarification, we conclude, will encourage
facilities-based competitors, including small businesses, to deploy
efficient technologies so as to maximize quality of service and
minimize costs. Thus, while we recognize that our approach might
prevent inefficient small entities from using UNEs to compete (i.e., in
those cases where a reasonably efficient small entity would not require
access to UNEs), we believe that the alternative approach, which would
reward inefficiency and produce overbroad unbundling rules, would be
inconsistent with the Communications Act.
54. Service Considerations. In response to the USTA II court's
guidance, we revise our approach to unbundling for the exclusive
provision of long distance and mobile wireless services. Specifically,
we abandon the ``qualifying services'' approach set forth in the
Triennial Review Order, which limited the section 251(d)(2) inquiry to
a subset of telecommunications services and which was rejected by the
D.C. Circuit. Based on the record, the court's guidance, and the
Commission's previous findings, we find that the mobile wireless
services market and long distance services market are markets where
competition has evolved without access to UNEs. We have therefore
determined, pursuant to our ``at a minimum'' authority to consider
factors other than impairment when assessing unbundling obligations, to
prohibit access to UNEs for exclusive provision of service to those
markets. We also considered, but declined to adopt, an approach also
barring use of UNEs for provision of other services specified in the
Act--namely, telephone exchange service and exchange access service,
the two services LECs provide. We recognize that the use restrictions
adopted in this Order may prevent small providers of mobile wireless
and long di