Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures, 35594-35599 [E6-9593]
Download as PDF
35594
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
for inspection and copying during
normal business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit,
EPA Region I, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114–
2023, telephone: (617) 918–1642, e-mail:
biscaia.robin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this
Federal Register, EPA is taking direct
final action on the proposed extension
of the expiration date for the Labs XL,
because EPA views the extension as
non-controversial, and anticipates no
adverse comments. EPA has explained
its reasons for the proposed extension in
the preamble to the direct final rule.
If EPA receives no adverse comments,
the direct final rule will take effect and
the EPA will take no further action on
this proposed rule. If EPA receives
adverse comments, EPA will withdraw
the direct final rule, by publishing a
timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register indicating that the direct final
rule is being withdrawn. If the direct
final rule is withdrawn, comments will
be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA may
not institute a second comment period
on the subsequent final rule. Any
parties interested in commenting should
do so at this time.
For additional information, please see
the direct final rule in the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: June 12, 2006.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. E6–9753 Filed 6–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WT Docket No. 05–211; FCC 06–52]
Implementation of the Commercial
Spectrum Enhancement Act and
Modernization of the Commission’s
Competitive Bidding Rules and
Procedures
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document the
Commission seeks comment on whether
the Commission should implement
additional safeguards beyond those the
Commission adopted in its Second
Report and Order and whether the
Commission should further modify its
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:27 Jun 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
competitive bidding rules governing
benefits reserved for designed entities.
The Commission also seeks comment to
obtain additional evidence regarding
how and under what circumstances an
entity’s size might affect its
relationships and agreements with
designated entity applicants and
licensees.
DATES: Comments due August 21, 2006;
Reply Comments due September 19,
2006. Written comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed
information collection requirements
must be submitted by the public, Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and
other interested parties on or before
August 21, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WT Docket No. 05–211, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact
the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
In addition to filing comments with
the Secretary, a copy of any comments
on the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
Judith B. Herman, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 1–
C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20554, or via the Internet to
PRA@fcc.gov, and to Kristy L. LaLonde,
OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, via the Internet to Kristy_L.
LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at
202–395–5167.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rule making process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Carter, Auctions and Spectrum
Access Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau at (202)
418–0660. For additional information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements
contained in this document, contact
Judith B. Herman at (202) 418–0214, or
via the Internet at PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rule Making released on
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
April 25, 2006. The complete text of the
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making including attachments and
related Commission documents is
available for public inspection and
copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Thursday or from 8:00
a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday at the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
and related Commission documents
may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI),
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 202–488–5300, facsimile
202–488–5563, or you may contact BCPI
at its Web site: https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering
documents from BCPI please provide
the appropriate FCC document number,
for example, FCC 06–52. The Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
and related documents are also available
on the Internet at the Commission’s Web
site: https://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. All filings
related to this Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making should refer to
WT Docket No. 05–211. Comments may
be filed using: (1) The Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Filers should follow the instructions
provided on the Web site for submitting
comments. Filers should follow the
instructions provided on the Web site
for submitting comments.
• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket
or rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of this proceeding, filers must
transmit one electronic copy of the
comments for each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also
submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing
instructions, filers should send an e-
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
following words in the body of the
message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rule making number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rule making number. Filings
can be sent by hand or messenger
delivery, by commercial overnight
courier, or by first-class or overnight
U.S. Postal Service mail (although we
continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• The Commission’s contractor will
receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours
at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All
hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
• People with Disabilities: Contact
the FCC to request materials in
accessible formats (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format, etc.) by email at fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0531 (voice), (202)
418–7365 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
This document may contain proposed
information collection requirements.
The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in
this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Public and agency
comments are due August 21, 2006.
Comments should address: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Commission,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Jun 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might
further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
OMB Control Number: 3060–0600.
Title: Application to Participate in an
Auction.
Form No.: FCC Form 175.
Type of Review: Revision of currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit, not-for-profit institutions and/or
state, local or tribal governments.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
620 (60 respondents for this Second
FNPRM and; 560 respondents in a
previously approved submission to
OMB.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.350
hours–1.5 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 775
hours (10 hours for this Second FRPRM
and 765 hours for the previous
submission approved by OMB).
Estimated Total Annual Costs: N/A.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.
Needs and Uses: The information
collected will be used by the
Commission to determine if the
applicant is legally, technically, and
financially qualified to participate in an
FCC auction and eligible for the status
requested. The Commission’s auction
rules and requirements are designed to
ensure that the competitive bidding
process is limited to serious qualified
applicants; to deter possible abuse of the
bidding and licensing process; and to
enhance the use of competitive bidding
to assign Commission licenses in
furtherance of the public interest.
Synopsis of the Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rule Making
I. Introduction
1. The Commission issued a Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(Second FNPRM) released on April 25,
2006 to consider whether it should
modify further its general competitive
bidding rules governing benefits
reserved for designated entities.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35595
2. Specifically, the Commission seeks
guidance on whether it should
implement additional safeguards
beyond those adopted in its Second
Report & Order (Second R&O) released
April 25, 2006, 71 FR 26245, May 4,
2006, to ensure that its designated entity
benefits are awarded to the entities and
for the purposes intended by Congress.
The Commission requests additional
economic evidence regarding how and
under what circumstances an entity’s
size might affect its relationships and
agreements with designated entity
applicants and licensees. Additionally,
the Commission seeks further comment
on whether it should adopt additional
rule changes that would restrict the
award of designated entity benefits
under certain circumstances and in
connection with relationships with
certain entities.
A. Defining the Class
3. In the FNPRM, 71 FR 6992,
February 10, 2006, the Commission
tentatively concluded that it should
restrict the award of designated entity
benefits to an otherwise qualified
applicant where it has a material
relationship with a large in-region
incumbent wireless service provider.
The Commission sought comment on
how to define the specific elements of
such a restriction.
4. The FNPRM also sought comment
on whether the Commission should
instead apply the restriction to the
award of designated entity benefits
where an applicant had a material
relationship with entities with
significant interests in communications
services in order to extend the scope of
such a restriction to a broader category
of businesses such as voice or data
providers, content providers, equipment
manufacturers, other media interests,
and/or facilities or non-facilities based
communications services providers. The
Commission sought comment on
whether all of these entities should be
included as part of its definition of
entities with significant interests in
communications services or whether the
Commission should consider excluding
some of these entities from its proposed
definition. The Commission also sought
comment on whether it should consider
including other entities as part of its
proposed definition.
5. The Commission acknowledges that
voice, data, and video services are
converging and are being offered as
bundled service packages. These
bundled service offerings may include
wireline, wireless, cable and or DBS
services along with the required
equipment such as handsets and
receivers. In light of the continuing
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
35596
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
dynamic technological developments
and convergence occurring in the
communications marketplace, the
Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate class of entity, if any, that
should trigger any additional restriction
the Commission may adopt regarding
relationships with designated entities.
For instance, would the Commission be
better positioned to achieve its statutory
mandates if it defined such an entity to
include one that is subject to the
Commission’s jurisdiction under Titles
I, II, III, or VI of the Communications
Act, including any of the entity’s
controlling interests or affiliates as those
terms are defined in § 1.2110 of the
Commission’s rules. The Commission
seeks comment on whether adopting a
definition of a class of entities with
which a designated entity’s agreements
might trigger additional restrictions for
designated entity benefits will better
ensure that the Commission can
continue to award such benefits to
entities that Congress intended.
6. The Commission also seeks
comment on the financial threshold, if
any, that it should consider in defining
the appropriate class of entity that might
trigger any additional eligibility
restrictions it adopts. It seeks further
comment on the proposed financial
benchmarks raised by commenters.
Should the Commission consider a
financial threshold of $5 billion in
annual gross revenues as advocated by
various parties or lower thresholds such
as $1 billion or $125 million as
suggested by other commenters? The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether an entity’s size is relevant to its
incentive and/or ability to influence a
designated entity with respect to the
type and scope of the service it might
provide as well as relevant economic
analysis to support such arguments.
7. Similarly, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it should define a
class of entities based on its particular
spectrum interests, for instance those
that have licenses for commercial
mobile radio services (CMRS) spectrum.
If the Commission were to define a class
in this manner, should it define CMRS
spectrum to include any spectrum for
which the service specific rules permit
the provision of commercial mobile
radio services as that term is defined in
§ 20.9 of the Commission’s rules? If the
Commission determines to base any
additional safeguards upon an entity’s
particular spectrum interests, should it
consider including spectrum other than
CMRS spectrum for the purposes of
such restrictions? If so, what spectrum
and why is it more or less relevant than
other types of spectrum?
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Jun 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
B. In-Region Limitation for Class of
Entities
8. In the FNPRM, the Commission
sought comment on whether geographic
overlap should be an element in
establishing any additional restriction
on the availability of designated entity
benefits for entities that have a material
relationship with a large wireless
service provider. The Commission also
sought comment on whether it should
apply a different, or any, geographic
standard if it extends the restriction on
designated entity benefits to applicants
that have a material relationship. The
Commission asked whether it should
apply the standard set forth in the
former spectrum aggregation rule to
define the geographic overlap or if it
should adopt a different definition of
geographic overlap. Further, the
Commission sought comment on how
the Commission should implement such
a restriction if the Commission
determined that a significant geographic
overlap did exist. The Commission
asked whether an incumbent should be
allowed to divest its interest in the
subject service area to allow a
designated entity applicant to maintain
eligibility for a bidding credit, and if so,
within what time period should it
require the divestiture. The Commission
also sought comment on whether the
application of the standard set forth in
§ 20.6(c) of the Commission’s rules or
any other geographic overlap restriction
would place an undue administrative
burden on the Commission, making it
difficult to monitor an applicant’s
compliance with any adopted
geographic overlap restriction.
9. In response to the FNPRM, the
Commission received comment both in
support of and against an in-region
element to any further designated entity
restrictions. Many of these commenters
suggested using the significant overlap,
attributable interest, and divestiture
standards from the sunset CMRS
spectrum aggregation limit pursuant to
§ 20.6(c)(2) of the Commission’s rules.
Other commenters stated that significant
overlap should not be a factor in
determining eligibility for small
business benefits.
10. In the Second FNPRM, the
Commission seeks further comment on
whether it should adopt an in-region
component to defining relationships
with any particular class or type of
entity that could trigger any additional
eligibility restrictions it might adopt.
The Commission also seeks comment on
whether all entities with in-region
spectrum interests have the same ability
and incentive to leverage an
inappropriate level of influence over a
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
designated entity with which it has
financial and/or operational
arrangements. Additionally, the
Commission seeks comment on how the
in-region component might protect the
designated entity program from being
subject to potential abuse from those
entities that might seek to craft
relationships with designated entity
applicants in a manner intended to
serve their self-interests.
11. Assuming the Commission does
adopt an in-region component to any
additional eligibility restrictions, the
Commission seeks comment as to
whether it should find that a geographic
overlap that triggers the in-region
restriction occurs when there is any
overlap between the licensed service
areas of the entity that has in-region
spectrum, with whom the designated
entity applicant has a material
relationship, or any affiliate of the entity
that has in-region spectrum as defined
in § 1.2110 of the Commission’s rules,
and the licensed service area to be
acquired by the designated entity
applicant. Further, the Commission
seeks comment on whether the adoption
of an in-region component to any
additional eligibility restrictions would
be burdensome to implement.
12. Most entities responding to the
FNPRM declined to discuss whether a
restricted entity should be allowed to
divest its interest in the subject service
area to allow a designated entity
applicant to maintain eligibility for
designated entity benefits. Thus, in the
Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks
comment as to whether any class of
entities on which any additional
eligibility restriction is based should be
allowed to divest its interest in the
subject service area to allow a
designated entity applicant to maintain
eligibility for benefits. The Commission
also seeks comment as to whether the
Commission should adopt divestiture
provisions similar to those found in the
eliminated spectrum aggregation limit
rules.
13. The Commission seeks comment
on whether divestiture should be
permitted. Specifically, the Commission
seeks comment as to how such
divestitures should be implemented.
The Commission seeks comment on the
time period for divestiture and whether
the restricted entity should be allowed
to market the spectrum or whether such
marketing should be done by a trustee.
The Commission seeks comment as to
whether the award of designated entity
licenses should be withheld until the
restricted entity files the applications to
divest or until the transaction to sell the
divestiture spectrum has been
consummated. The Commission also
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
seeks comment as to whether the
Commission should receive reports
detailing the progress made in
identifying a buyer for the divestiture
spectrum and how often such reports
should be filed.
14. The Commission also asked
commenters to discuss what should
occur if the restricted entity that has inregion spectrum fails to divest. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
the designated entity must purchase the
license without the benefit of the
bidding credit and be subject to the
Commission’s default rules. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether the requirement for a
designated entity to purchase the
license without the bidding credit
maintains auction integrity and ensures
that entities with in-region CMRS
spectrum are not able to game the
auction process.
C. Material Relationships
15. Following on its rule revisions
adopted in the Second R&O, in the
Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks
comment on whether there is a need to
even further modify its part 1
designated entity eligibility rules to
include other types of agreements in its
definitions of ‘‘impermissible material
relationships’’ or ‘‘attributable material
relationships.’’
16. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the specific types of
additional agreements, if any, that
should fall within its definitions of
impermissible material relationships
and attributable material relationships.
The Commission also seeks comment on
whether its concern regarding
relationships between designated entity
applicants or licensees and other
entities should differ depending upon
the type of entity at issue and the
circumstances surrounding the
relationship. Should the Commission
reconsider adopting a minimum equity
requirement for designated entity
applicants or define material
relationship in a way that would
prohibit a designated entity applicant
from securing all of its capitalization
from outside sources? The Commission
also seeks comment on commenters’
suggestions to include additional
operational agreements in its definitions
of material relationship and asks
whether doing so creates technological
and practical restrictions that could
hinder a designated entity licensee’s
ability to become a provider of spectrum
based services, as intended by Congress.
17. Based on the limited record
developed in response to the FNPRM,
and the Commission’s extensive
experience in administering the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Jun 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
designated entity program, the
Commission is concerned that
additional types of relationships could
have the potential to confer significant
influence over the actions of a
designated entity licensee thereby
allowing an ineligible entity the ability
to gain undue advantages in the
communications marketplace through
the benefits offered to a designated
entity applicant. The Commission
therefore seeks comment on the specific
types of additional agreements that
should fall within its definitions of
‘‘impermissible material relationships’’
and ‘‘attributable material
relationships’’ so that it may be better
able to prevent the potential for abuse
of the designated entity program,
thereby ensuring the award of our
designated entity benefits only to
legitimate small businesses.
18. The Commission generally does
not have the same concerns regarding
relationships between designated entity
applicants and those who do not have
interests in spectrum capacity or the
provision of service, such as financial
institutions or venture capital firms,
provided that such entities do not have
a controlling interest relationship with
the applicant. The Commission
presumes that for those entities, the
overarching goal and primary incentive
for partnering with a designated entity
is to seek a return on investment rather
than to provide service themselves
using the designated entity’s spectrum
licenses. The Commission seeks
comment on its presumption. Likewise,
the Commission presumes that where an
entity is not already providing
communications services, there is no
opportunity for it to bundle existing
communications services with a
strategic wireless partner, and there is
less potential for those entities to exert
undue influence over a designated
entity licensee’s decision making
regarding its service provision or the use
of its licensed spectrum. The
Commission also seeks comment on this
presumption. Assuming that its
presumptions are valid, the Commission
anticipates that such relationships will
not require the additional safeguards the
Commission may apply to relationships
with other entities that have differing
incentives and motivations. For
instance, if the Commission includes
financial relationships in its definition
of either impermissible material
relationships or attributable material
relationship it might specifically
exclude relationships with financial
institutions from such a definition. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
it should specifically do so.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35597
19. With regard to financial
relationships, Commission asks whether
it should conclude that the greater the
financial stake an entity has in a
designated entity the more incentive it
has to significantly influence the
designated entity licensee’s decisions
regarding its provision of service. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether it should expand its definitions
of impermissible material relationship
or attributable material relationship to
include any financial relationship(s)
(including any combination of equity,
debt, loan or credit agreements, as well
as future interests for such financial
arrangements) between a designated
entity applicant or licensee and another
entity that represents more than a
certain percentage of the designated
entity’s total financing. If so, it asks
what is the appropriate percentage? The
Commission seeks comment on how the
percentage of an entity’s financial
interest in a designated entity applicant
or licensee should be considered in its
definitions of impermissible material
relationship or attributable material
relationship. In this regard the
Commission is concerned that it does
not want to create a situation in which
additional safeguards regarding
financial interests render a designated
entity without any avenues for access to
much needed capital.
20. Additionally, the Commission
asks whether there are circumstances in
which it should define material
relationships to include, without
limitation, management agreements,
trademark license agreements, joint
marketing agreements, future interest
agreements (such as puts, calls, options,
and warrants), and long-term de facto
and spectrum manager leasing
arrangements? If so, should such
relationships be considered to be
impermissible material relationships or
attributable material relationships?
Likewise, the Commission seeks
comment regarding the circumstances
under which the existence of any
agreement between a designated entity
applicant or licensee and another entity
will have the strong potential to convey
influence over the operations of the
designated entity and the deployment of
its spectrum in a manner contrary to
that intended by Congress.
21. The Commission also seeks
comment upon whether it should adopt
even tighter safeguards to prevent the
development of relationships that might
deter designated entities from evolving
into independent facilities-based
competitors. For example, are
circumstances in which the Commission
should define ‘‘material relationship’’ to
include any relationship, financial and/
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
35598
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
or operational, between a designated
entity applicant or licensee and another
entity? For instance, does the likelihood
that certain relationships will influence
a designated entity’s provision of
service increase when agreements are
entered into with an entity that has
existing self-interests in the same
spectrum?
22. The Commission seeks comment
on whether, if it includes all
agreements, both financial and
operational, as either impermissible
material relationships or attributable
material relationships between
designated entities and entities that
have existing spectrum interests in the
same geographic areas, it can reduce the
reliance of designated entities on those
that might provide funding or
operational support in a manner
designed to complement their own
services rather than for facilitating the
emergence of new technologies and new
facilities-based competitors.
23. The Commission also seeks
comment on any and all of the
agreements it should consider including
in its definitions of impermissible
material relationships or attributable
material relationships and whether it
should take into consideration whether
such agreements are made with certain
types of entities with certain geographic
interests.
24. Moreover, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it should include
personal net worth in determining
designated entity eligibility and if so,
whether it should adopt the proposal to
prohibit individuals with a net worth of
$3 million or more (excluding the value
of a primary residence) from having a
controlling interest in a designated
entity or whether it should place other
net-worth-based restrictions on
designated entity eligibility.
25. The Commission generally has not
adopted personal net worth restrictions,
including personal income and assets,
for purposes of eligibility for designated
entity provisions. The Commission has
observed, for example, that personal net
worth limits are difficult to apply and
enforce and may be easily manipulated.
The Commission seeks comment on
whether it should reconsider its
treatment of personal net worth in
determining eligibility for designated
entity benefits and if so, what changes
the Commission should adopt and why.
II. Procedural Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
26. The Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) for the Second FNPRM.
Comments on the IRFA should be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Jun 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
labeled as IRFA Comments, and should
be submitted pursuant to the filing dates
and procedures.
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
27. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in the Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rule Making (Second
FNPRM). Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA
and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments provided in the Second
FNPRM. The Commission will send a
copy of the Second Further Notice,
including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the Second FNPRM and the
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
28. The initial FNPRM proceeding
tentatively concluded that it should
restrict the award of designated entity
benefits to an otherwise qualified
applicant where it has a material
relationship with a large in-region
incumbent wireless service provider.
The Commission sought comment on
how it should define the elements of
such a restriction. Based on the
Commission’s experience in
administering the designated entity
program and the record developed in
response to the FNPRM, the Second
FNPRM seeks further comment on those
issues, including comment to obtain
additional economic evidence regarding
how and under what circumstances an
entity’s size might affect its
relationships and agreements with
designated entity applicants and
licensees. The Second FNPRM also
seeks comment on whether the
Commission should adopt additional
rule changes that would restrict the
award of designated entity benefits
under certain circumstances and in
connection with relationships with
certain types of entities and individuals
with high personal net worth, including
whether and how in-region
relationships and personal net worth
should be considered in determining
eligibility for designated entity benefits.
29. Over the last decade, the
Commission has engaged in numerous
rulemakings and adjudicatory
investigations to prevent companies
from circumventing the objectives of the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
designated entity eligibility rules. To
that end, in determining whether to
award designated entity benefits, the
Commission adopted a strict eligibility
standard that focused on whether the
applicant maintained control of the
corporate entity. The Commission’s
objective in employing such a standard
was to deter the establishment of sham
companies in a manner that permits
easy resolution of eligibility issues
without the delay of administrative
hearings. The Commission intends its
small business provisions to be
available only to bona fide small
businesses.
B. Legal Basis
30. The proposed actions are
authorized under sections 4(i), 303(r),
and 309(j) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections
154(i), 303(r), and 309(j).
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
31. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term small entity
as having the same meaning as the terms
small organization, small business, and
small governmental jurisdiction. The
term small business has the same
meaning as the term small business
concern under the Small Business Act.
A small business concern is one which:
(1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
32. A small organization is generally
any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field. Nationwide,
as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6
million small organizations. The term
small governmental jurisdiction is
defined as governments of cities, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand. Census Bureau
data for 2002 indicate that there were
87,525 local governmental jurisdictions
in the United States. The Commission
estimates that, of this total, 84,377
entities were small governmental
jurisdictions. Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are
small. Nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 22.4 million small
businesses, according to SBA data.
33. Any proposed changes or
additions to the Commission’s Part 1
rules that may be made as a result of the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
such a restriction. Based on the
Commission’s experience in
administering the designated entity
program and the record developed in
response to the FNPRM, the Second
FNPRM seeks further comment on those
issues, including comment to obtain
additional economic evidence regarding
how and under what circumstances an
entity’s size might affect its
relationships and agreements with
designated entity applicants and
licensees. The Second FNPRM also
seeks comment on whether the
Commission should adopt additional
rule changes that would restrict the
award of designated entity benefits
under certain circumstances and in
connection with relationships with
certain types of entities and individuals
with high personal net worth, including
whether and how in-region
relationships and personal net worth
should be considered in determining
eligibility for designated entity benefits.
The Second FNPRM seeks guidance
from the industry on how it should
define the elements of any restrictions it
might adopt regarding the award of
designated entity benefits. Small entity
comments are specifically requested.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
34. The Commission will not require
additional reporting, recordkeeping or
other compliance requirements
pursuant to the Second FNPRM.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Second FNPRM would be of general
applicability to all services, applying to
all entities of any size that apply to
participate in Commission auctions.
Accordingly, this IRFA provides a
general analysis of the impact of the
proposals on small businesses rather
than service by service analysis. The
number of entities that may apply to
participate in future Commission
auctions is unknown. The number of
small businesses that have participated
in prior auctions has varied. In all of our
auctions held to date, 1,975 out of a
total of 3,545 qualified bidders either
have claimed eligibility for small
business bidding credits or have selfreported their status as small businesses
as that term has been defined under
rules adopted by the Commission for
specific services. 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. Also, the Commission does not
generally track subsequent business size
unless, in the context of assignments or
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
37. None.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
35. 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.
36. The initial FNPRM in that
proceeding tentatively concluded that it
should restrict the award of designated
entity benefits to an otherwise qualified
applicant where it has a material
relationship with a large in-region
incumbent wireless service provider.
The Commission sought comment on
how it should define the elements of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Jun 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
38. The Second FNPRM may contain
proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The
Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens,
invites the general public and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to
comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this
document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13. Public and agency comments are
due August 21, 2006. Comments should
address: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Commission, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
Commission’s burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35599
specific comment on how it might
further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
V. Ordering Clauses
39. It is ordered that pursuant to
sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i),
303(r), and 309(j), this Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making is
hereby adopted.
40. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rule Making, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and
procedure, Auctions, Licensing,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–9593 Filed 6–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 21 and 22
RINs 1018–AG11 and 1018–AT60
Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the
Regulations Governing Falconry and
Raptor Propagation; Draft
Environmental Assessment on Take of
Raptors From the Wild for Falconry
and Raptor Propagation
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of a Draft Environmental
Assessment (DEA) evaluating the take of
raptors from the wild for use in falconry
and in raptor propagation. We have
prepared this DEA as part of the process
we must follow to finalize two rules
under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
DATES: Send comments on the DEA by
September 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may pick up a copy of
the DEA or hand-deliver your comments
to the Division of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 21, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35594-35599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-9593]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WT Docket No. 05-211; FCC 06-52]
Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and
Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and
Procedures
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document the Commission seeks comment on whether the
Commission should implement additional safeguards beyond those the
Commission adopted in its Second Report and Order and whether the
Commission should further modify its competitive bidding rules
governing benefits reserved for designed entities. The Commission also
seeks comment to obtain additional evidence regarding how and under
what circumstances an entity's size might affect its relationships and
agreements with designated entity applicants and licensees.
DATES: Comments due August 21, 2006; Reply Comments due September 19,
2006. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed
information collection requirements must be submitted by the public,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other interested parties on
or before August 21, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 05-211,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman,
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to PRA@fcc.gov, and to Kristy
L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, via the Internet to Kristy--L.
LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at 202-395-5167.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rule making process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Carter, Auctions and Spectrum
Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-0660.
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact
Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making released on April 25, 2006. The complete
text of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making including
attachments and related Commission documents is available for public
inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through
Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
and related Commission documents may also be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or you may
contact BCPI at its Web site: https://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering
documents from BCPI please provide the appropriate FCC document number,
for example, FCC 06-52. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making and related documents are also available on the Internet at the
Commission's Web site: https://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. All filings related to this Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making should refer to WT Docket No. 05-211. Comments may be filed
using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
(2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper
copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web
site for submitting comments.
For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-
[[Page 35595]]
mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of
the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in
response.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rule making number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rule making number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission.
The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
materials in accessible formats (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format, etc.) by e-mail at fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0531 (voice),
(202) 418-7365 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document may contain proposed information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments
are due August 21, 2006. Comments should address: (a) Whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
OMB Control Number: 3060-0600.
Title: Application to Participate in an Auction.
Form No.: FCC Form 175.
Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit
institutions and/or state, local or tribal governments.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 620 (60 respondents for this
Second FNPRM and; 560 respondents in a previously approved submission
to OMB.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.350 hours-1.5 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 775 hours (10 hours for this Second
FRPRM and 765 hours for the previous submission approved by OMB).
Estimated Total Annual Costs: N/A.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.
Needs and Uses: The information collected will be used by the
Commission to determine if the applicant is legally, technically, and
financially qualified to participate in an FCC auction and eligible for
the status requested. The Commission's auction rules and requirements
are designed to ensure that the competitive bidding process is limited
to serious qualified applicants; to deter possible abuse of the bidding
and licensing process; and to enhance the use of competitive bidding to
assign Commission licenses in furtherance of the public interest.
Synopsis of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
I. Introduction
1. The Commission issued a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (Second FNPRM) released on April 25, 2006 to consider whether it
should modify further its general competitive bidding rules governing
benefits reserved for designated entities.
2. Specifically, the Commission seeks guidance on whether it should
implement additional safeguards beyond those adopted in its Second
Report & Order (Second R&O) released April 25, 2006, 71 FR 26245, May
4, 2006, to ensure that its designated entity benefits are awarded to
the entities and for the purposes intended by Congress. The Commission
requests additional economic evidence regarding how and under what
circumstances an entity's size might affect its relationships and
agreements with designated entity applicants and licensees.
Additionally, the Commission seeks further comment on whether it should
adopt additional rule changes that would restrict the award of
designated entity benefits under certain circumstances and in
connection with relationships with certain entities.
A. Defining the Class
3. In the FNPRM, 71 FR 6992, February 10, 2006, the Commission
tentatively concluded that it should restrict the award of designated
entity benefits to an otherwise qualified applicant where it has a
material relationship with a large in-region incumbent wireless service
provider. The Commission sought comment on how to define the specific
elements of such a restriction.
4. The FNPRM also sought comment on whether the Commission should
instead apply the restriction to the award of designated entity
benefits where an applicant had a material relationship with entities
with significant interests in communications services in order to
extend the scope of such a restriction to a broader category of
businesses such as voice or data providers, content providers,
equipment manufacturers, other media interests, and/or facilities or
non-facilities based communications services providers. The Commission
sought comment on whether all of these entities should be included as
part of its definition of entities with significant interests in
communications services or whether the Commission should consider
excluding some of these entities from its proposed definition. The
Commission also sought comment on whether it should consider including
other entities as part of its proposed definition.
5. The Commission acknowledges that voice, data, and video services
are converging and are being offered as bundled service packages. These
bundled service offerings may include wireline, wireless, cable and or
DBS services along with the required equipment such as handsets and
receivers. In light of the continuing
[[Page 35596]]
dynamic technological developments and convergence occurring in the
communications marketplace, the Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate class of entity, if any, that should trigger any additional
restriction the Commission may adopt regarding relationships with
designated entities. For instance, would the Commission be better
positioned to achieve its statutory mandates if it defined such an
entity to include one that is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction
under Titles I, II, III, or VI of the Communications Act, including any
of the entity's controlling interests or affiliates as those terms are
defined in Sec. 1.2110 of the Commission's rules. The Commission seeks
comment on whether adopting a definition of a class of entities with
which a designated entity's agreements might trigger additional
restrictions for designated entity benefits will better ensure that the
Commission can continue to award such benefits to entities that
Congress intended.
6. The Commission also seeks comment on the financial threshold, if
any, that it should consider in defining the appropriate class of
entity that might trigger any additional eligibility restrictions it
adopts. It seeks further comment on the proposed financial benchmarks
raised by commenters. Should the Commission consider a financial
threshold of $5 billion in annual gross revenues as advocated by
various parties or lower thresholds such as $1 billion or $125 million
as suggested by other commenters? The Commission also seeks comment on
whether an entity's size is relevant to its incentive and/or ability to
influence a designated entity with respect to the type and scope of the
service it might provide as well as relevant economic analysis to
support such arguments.
7. Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should
define a class of entities based on its particular spectrum interests,
for instance those that have licenses for commercial mobile radio
services (CMRS) spectrum. If the Commission were to define a class in
this manner, should it define CMRS spectrum to include any spectrum for
which the service specific rules permit the provision of commercial
mobile radio services as that term is defined in Sec. 20.9 of the
Commission's rules? If the Commission determines to base any additional
safeguards upon an entity's particular spectrum interests, should it
consider including spectrum other than CMRS spectrum for the purposes
of such restrictions? If so, what spectrum and why is it more or less
relevant than other types of spectrum?
B. In-Region Limitation for Class of Entities
8. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether
geographic overlap should be an element in establishing any additional
restriction on the availability of designated entity benefits for
entities that have a material relationship with a large wireless
service provider. The Commission also sought comment on whether it
should apply a different, or any, geographic standard if it extends the
restriction on designated entity benefits to applicants that have a
material relationship. The Commission asked whether it should apply the
standard set forth in the former spectrum aggregation rule to define
the geographic overlap or if it should adopt a different definition of
geographic overlap. Further, the Commission sought comment on how the
Commission should implement such a restriction if the Commission
determined that a significant geographic overlap did exist. The
Commission asked whether an incumbent should be allowed to divest its
interest in the subject service area to allow a designated entity
applicant to maintain eligibility for a bidding credit, and if so,
within what time period should it require the divestiture. The
Commission also sought comment on whether the application of the
standard set forth in Sec. 20.6(c) of the Commission's rules or any
other geographic overlap restriction would place an undue
administrative burden on the Commission, making it difficult to monitor
an applicant's compliance with any adopted geographic overlap
restriction.
9. In response to the FNPRM, the Commission received comment both
in support of and against an in-region element to any further
designated entity restrictions. Many of these commenters suggested
using the significant overlap, attributable interest, and divestiture
standards from the sunset CMRS spectrum aggregation limit pursuant to
Sec. 20.6(c)(2) of the Commission's rules. Other commenters stated
that significant overlap should not be a factor in determining
eligibility for small business benefits.
10. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks further comment on
whether it should adopt an in-region component to defining
relationships with any particular class or type of entity that could
trigger any additional eligibility restrictions it might adopt. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether all entities with in-region
spectrum interests have the same ability and incentive to leverage an
inappropriate level of influence over a designated entity with which it
has financial and/or operational arrangements. Additionally, the
Commission seeks comment on how the in-region component might protect
the designated entity program from being subject to potential abuse
from those entities that might seek to craft relationships with
designated entity applicants in a manner intended to serve their self-
interests.
11. Assuming the Commission does adopt an in-region component to
any additional eligibility restrictions, the Commission seeks comment
as to whether it should find that a geographic overlap that triggers
the in-region restriction occurs when there is any overlap between the
licensed service areas of the entity that has in-region spectrum, with
whom the designated entity applicant has a material relationship, or
any affiliate of the entity that has in-region spectrum as defined in
Sec. 1.2110 of the Commission's rules, and the licensed service area
to be acquired by the designated entity applicant. Further, the
Commission seeks comment on whether the adoption of an in-region
component to any additional eligibility restrictions would be
burdensome to implement.
12. Most entities responding to the FNPRM declined to discuss
whether a restricted entity should be allowed to divest its interest in
the subject service area to allow a designated entity applicant to
maintain eligibility for designated entity benefits. Thus, in the
Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment as to whether any class of
entities on which any additional eligibility restriction is based
should be allowed to divest its interest in the subject service area to
allow a designated entity applicant to maintain eligibility for
benefits. The Commission also seeks comment as to whether the
Commission should adopt divestiture provisions similar to those found
in the eliminated spectrum aggregation limit rules.
13. The Commission seeks comment on whether divestiture should be
permitted. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment as to how such
divestitures should be implemented. The Commission seeks comment on the
time period for divestiture and whether the restricted entity should be
allowed to market the spectrum or whether such marketing should be done
by a trustee. The Commission seeks comment as to whether the award of
designated entity licenses should be withheld until the restricted
entity files the applications to divest or until the transaction to
sell the divestiture spectrum has been consummated. The Commission also
[[Page 35597]]
seeks comment as to whether the Commission should receive reports
detailing the progress made in identifying a buyer for the divestiture
spectrum and how often such reports should be filed.
14. The Commission also asked commenters to discuss what should
occur if the restricted entity that has in-region spectrum fails to
divest. The Commission seeks comment on whether the designated entity
must purchase the license without the benefit of the bidding credit and
be subject to the Commission's default rules. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the requirement for a designated entity to purchase
the license without the bidding credit maintains auction integrity and
ensures that entities with in-region CMRS spectrum are not able to game
the auction process.
C. Material Relationships
15. Following on its rule revisions adopted in the Second R&O, in
the Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is a
need to even further modify its part 1 designated entity eligibility
rules to include other types of agreements in its definitions of
``impermissible material relationships'' or ``attributable material
relationships.''
16. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the specific
types of additional agreements, if any, that should fall within its
definitions of impermissible material relationships and attributable
material relationships. The Commission also seeks comment on whether
its concern regarding relationships between designated entity
applicants or licensees and other entities should differ depending upon
the type of entity at issue and the circumstances surrounding the
relationship. Should the Commission reconsider adopting a minimum
equity requirement for designated entity applicants or define material
relationship in a way that would prohibit a designated entity applicant
from securing all of its capitalization from outside sources? The
Commission also seeks comment on commenters' suggestions to include
additional operational agreements in its definitions of material
relationship and asks whether doing so creates technological and
practical restrictions that could hinder a designated entity licensee's
ability to become a provider of spectrum based services, as intended by
Congress.
17. Based on the limited record developed in response to the FNPRM,
and the Commission's extensive experience in administering the
designated entity program, the Commission is concerned that additional
types of relationships could have the potential to confer significant
influence over the actions of a designated entity licensee thereby
allowing an ineligible entity the ability to gain undue advantages in
the communications marketplace through the benefits offered to a
designated entity applicant. The Commission therefore seeks comment on
the specific types of additional agreements that should fall within its
definitions of ``impermissible material relationships'' and
``attributable material relationships'' so that it may be better able
to prevent the potential for abuse of the designated entity program,
thereby ensuring the award of our designated entity benefits only to
legitimate small businesses.
18. The Commission generally does not have the same concerns
regarding relationships between designated entity applicants and those
who do not have interests in spectrum capacity or the provision of
service, such as financial institutions or venture capital firms,
provided that such entities do not have a controlling interest
relationship with the applicant. The Commission presumes that for those
entities, the overarching goal and primary incentive for partnering
with a designated entity is to seek a return on investment rather than
to provide service themselves using the designated entity's spectrum
licenses. The Commission seeks comment on its presumption. Likewise,
the Commission presumes that where an entity is not already providing
communications services, there is no opportunity for it to bundle
existing communications services with a strategic wireless partner, and
there is less potential for those entities to exert undue influence
over a designated entity licensee's decision making regarding its
service provision or the use of its licensed spectrum. The Commission
also seeks comment on this presumption. Assuming that its presumptions
are valid, the Commission anticipates that such relationships will not
require the additional safeguards the Commission may apply to
relationships with other entities that have differing incentives and
motivations. For instance, if the Commission includes financial
relationships in its definition of either impermissible material
relationships or attributable material relationship it might
specifically exclude relationships with financial institutions from
such a definition. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should
specifically do so.
19. With regard to financial relationships, Commission asks whether
it should conclude that the greater the financial stake an entity has
in a designated entity the more incentive it has to significantly
influence the designated entity licensee's decisions regarding its
provision of service. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it
should expand its definitions of impermissible material relationship or
attributable material relationship to include any financial
relationship(s) (including any combination of equity, debt, loan or
credit agreements, as well as future interests for such financial
arrangements) between a designated entity applicant or licensee and
another entity that represents more than a certain percentage of the
designated entity's total financing. If so, it asks what is the
appropriate percentage? The Commission seeks comment on how the
percentage of an entity's financial interest in a designated entity
applicant or licensee should be considered in its definitions of
impermissible material relationship or attributable material
relationship. In this regard the Commission is concerned that it does
not want to create a situation in which additional safeguards regarding
financial interests render a designated entity without any avenues for
access to much needed capital.
20. Additionally, the Commission asks whether there are
circumstances in which it should define material relationships to
include, without limitation, management agreements, trademark license
agreements, joint marketing agreements, future interest agreements
(such as puts, calls, options, and warrants), and long-term de facto
and spectrum manager leasing arrangements? If so, should such
relationships be considered to be impermissible material relationships
or attributable material relationships? Likewise, the Commission seeks
comment regarding the circumstances under which the existence of any
agreement between a designated entity applicant or licensee and another
entity will have the strong potential to convey influence over the
operations of the designated entity and the deployment of its spectrum
in a manner contrary to that intended by Congress.
21. The Commission also seeks comment upon whether it should adopt
even tighter safeguards to prevent the development of relationships
that might deter designated entities from evolving into independent
facilities-based competitors. For example, are circumstances in which
the Commission should define ``material relationship'' to include any
relationship, financial and/
[[Page 35598]]
or operational, between a designated entity applicant or licensee and
another entity? For instance, does the likelihood that certain
relationships will influence a designated entity's provision of service
increase when agreements are entered into with an entity that has
existing self-interests in the same spectrum?
22. The Commission seeks comment on whether, if it includes all
agreements, both financial and operational, as either impermissible
material relationships or attributable material relationships between
designated entities and entities that have existing spectrum interests
in the same geographic areas, it can reduce the reliance of designated
entities on those that might provide funding or operational support in
a manner designed to complement their own services rather than for
facilitating the emergence of new technologies and new facilities-based
competitors.
23. The Commission also seeks comment on any and all of the
agreements it should consider including in its definitions of
impermissible material relationships or attributable material
relationships and whether it should take into consideration whether
such agreements are made with certain types of entities with certain
geographic interests.
24. Moreover, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should
include personal net worth in determining designated entity eligibility
and if so, whether it should adopt the proposal to prohibit individuals
with a net worth of $3 million or more (excluding the value of a
primary residence) from having a controlling interest in a designated
entity or whether it should place other net-worth-based restrictions on
designated entity eligibility.
25. The Commission generally has not adopted personal net worth
restrictions, including personal income and assets, for purposes of
eligibility for designated entity provisions. The Commission has
observed, for example, that personal net worth limits are difficult to
apply and enforce and may be easily manipulated. The Commission seeks
comment on whether it should reconsider its treatment of personal net
worth in determining eligibility for designated entity benefits and if
so, what changes the Commission should adopt and why.
II. Procedural Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
26. The Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) for the Second FNPRM. Comments on the IRFA should be
labeled as IRFA Comments, and should be submitted pursuant to the
filing dates and procedures.
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
27. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (Second FNPRM). Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in the
Second FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Further
Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Second FNPRM and
the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
28. The initial FNPRM proceeding tentatively concluded that it
should restrict the award of designated entity benefits to an otherwise
qualified applicant where it has a material relationship with a large
in-region incumbent wireless service provider. The Commission sought
comment on how it should define the elements of such a restriction.
Based on the Commission's experience in administering the designated
entity program and the record developed in response to the FNPRM, the
Second FNPRM seeks further comment on those issues, including comment
to obtain additional economic evidence regarding how and under what
circumstances an entity's size might affect its relationships and
agreements with designated entity applicants and licensees. The Second
FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt
additional rule changes that would restrict the award of designated
entity benefits under certain circumstances and in connection with
relationships with certain types of entities and individuals with high
personal net worth, including whether and how in-region relationships
and personal net worth should be considered in determining eligibility
for designated entity benefits.
29. Over the last decade, the Commission has engaged in numerous
rulemakings and adjudicatory investigations to prevent companies from
circumventing the objectives of the designated entity eligibility
rules. To that end, in determining whether to award designated entity
benefits, the Commission adopted a strict eligibility standard that
focused on whether the applicant maintained control of the corporate
entity. The Commission's objective in employing such a standard was to
deter the establishment of sham companies in a manner that permits easy
resolution of eligibility issues without the delay of administrative
hearings. The Commission intends its small business provisions to be
available only to bona fide small businesses.
B. Legal Basis
30. The proposed actions are authorized under sections 4(i),
303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. sections 154(i), 303(r), and 309(j).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
31. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small
organization, small business, and small governmental jurisdiction. The
term small business has the same meaning as the term small business
concern under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
32. A small organization is generally any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field. Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million
small organizations. The term small governmental jurisdiction is
defined as governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty
thousand. Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525
local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission
estimates that, of this total, 84,377 entities were small governmental
jurisdictions. Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions
are small. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million
small businesses, according to SBA data.
33. Any proposed changes or additions to the Commission's Part 1
rules that may be made as a result of the
[[Page 35599]]
Second FNPRM would be of general applicability to all services,
applying to all entities of any size that apply to participate in
Commission auctions. Accordingly, this IRFA provides a general analysis
of the impact of the proposals on small businesses rather than service
by service analysis. The number of entities that may apply to
participate in future Commission auctions is unknown. The number of
small businesses that have participated in prior auctions has varied.
In all of our auctions held to date, 1,975 out of a total of 3,545
qualified bidders either have claimed eligibility for small business
bidding credits or have self-reported their status as small businesses
as that term has been defined under rules adopted by the Commission for
specific services. 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. Also, the Commission does not
generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of
assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
34. The Commission will not require additional reporting,
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements pursuant to the Second
FNPRM.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
35. 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.
36. The initial FNPRM in that proceeding tentatively concluded that
it should restrict the award of designated entity benefits to an
otherwise qualified applicant where it has a material relationship with
a large in-region incumbent wireless service provider. The Commission
sought comment on how it should define the elements of such a
restriction. Based on the Commission's experience in administering the
designated entity program and the record developed in response to the
FNPRM, the Second FNPRM seeks further comment on those issues,
including comment to obtain additional economic evidence regarding how
and under what circumstances an entity's size might affect its
relationships and agreements with designated entity applicants and
licensees. The Second FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the
Commission should adopt additional rule changes that would restrict the
award of designated entity benefits under certain circumstances and in
connection with relationships with certain types of entities and
individuals with high personal net worth, including whether and how in-
region relationships and personal net worth should be considered in
determining eligibility for designated entity benefits. The Second
FNPRM seeks guidance from the industry on how it should define the
elements of any restrictions it might adopt regarding the award of
designated entity benefits. Small entity comments are specifically
requested.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
37. None.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
38. The Second FNPRM may contain proposed new or modified
information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
Public and agency comments are due August 21, 2006. Comments should
address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
V. Ordering Clauses
39. It is ordered that pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and
309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
sections 154(i), 303(r), and 309(j), this Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is hereby adopted.
40. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Auctions, Licensing,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-9593 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P