WPC 2B+J Z CourierCourierLine Printer 16.67cpiCourier Bold7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@26Za3|xnter 16.67cpiCourier BoldHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@3|x  @-  -@X01Í ÍX01Í Í2vpskkNa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2vtza2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 F   < a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2S #   z a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2c UTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2RCa2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2 3a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:zQ ?P <ԍXId. at paras. 239242. (#V  ?l <30. In the Bell Atlantic Market Trial Order the Commission authorized Bell Atlantic to conduct a sixmonth video dialtone market trial that will include provision of video programming directly to subscribers by a Bell Atlantic affiliate as well as  C <by independent video programmers.? xzQ ?<ԍXSee Bell Atlantic Market Trial Order, supra note 42.(# Pending resolution of the instant rulemaking proceeding, we conditioned Bell Atlantic's authorization on its compliance with existing safeguards for the provision of nonregulated services, including enhanced services, and with several additional, interim safeguards against  Cx<discrimination.N@xzQ ?<ԍXId. at para 22.(#N We seek comment on whether any or all of these interim safeguards should be adopted as permanent requirements for LECs that provide video programming over their own video dialtone platforms. 31. Included among the Commission's existing nonstructural safeguards are customer proprietary network information (CPNI) requirements. Under these requirements, the Commission limits the BOCs' and GTE's use of CPNI; requires them to make CPNI available to competitive enhanced service providers (ESPs) designated by a customer; and requires that they make available to ESPs nonproprietary aggregated CPNI on the same terms and conditions on which they make such (CPNI) available to their own  C<enhanced service personnel.PAzQ ?$<ԍXId. at para. 235.(#P In the Video Dialtone  ?p<Reconsideration Order, the Commission affirmed its decision to"p( A0*((!"  C<apply existing enhanced services CPNI rules to video dialtone.PBzQ ?X<ԍXId. at para. 239.(#P We determined that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that our existing CPNI rules do not properly balance our CPNI goals relating to privacy, efficiency, and competitive equity in  C$<the context of video dialtone.^C$XzQ ? <ԍXId. at para. 243 & n.456.(#^ The Commission also required the  ?<BOCs and GTE to provide additional information regarding the kinds of CPNI to which they will have access as a result of providing video dialtone service and indicated its intent to seek  CH<further comment on such information.PDHzQ ? <ԍXId. at para. 244.(#P We now seek additional comment and information on whether LEC provision of video programming impacts the balancing of our goals for CPNI. 32. In addition to concerns over possible anticompetitive use of CPNI, parties should discuss whether LEC provision of video programming raises new concerns regarding consumer privacy. Parties that perceive a greater threat to consumer privacy should describe with specificity their concerns, and suggest specific safeguards for protecting consumer privacy, and explain how these suggestions benefit the public interest.  ?< 33. We also seek comment on safeguards to ensure nondiscriminatory access to network technical information. In  ?<<the Bell Atlantic Market Trial Order, the Commission required Bell Atlantic to provide all video programmers with nondiscriminatory access to technical information concerning the  C<basic video dialtone platform and related equipment.vExzQ ?<ԍXSee Bell Atlantic Market Trial Order at para. 36.(#v The Commission also noted that, in the circumstances of the market trial, Bell Atlantic would also be subject to the more specific  C<Computer III network disclosure rules.F` xzQ ?<ԍXSee Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Safeguards and Tier 1 Local Exchange Company Safeguards, 6  ? <FCC Rcd 7571, 760304, para. 70 (1991) (BOC Safeguards  ? <Order), vacated in part and remanded, California v. FCC.  ?!<See also Bell Operating Companies' Joint Petition for Waiver  ?p"<of Computer II Rules, DA 9536 (released January 11, 1995),  ?8#<para. 23 (BOCs must continue to comply with Computer III safeguards against discrimination pending Commission action  ?$<in response to the remand of the BOC Safeguards Order in  ?%<California v. FCC, see infra note 71. As noted below, see  ?X&<infra note 71, the Ninth Circuit set aside, in part, our BOC  ? '<Safeguards Order on review, finding that we had failed to" 'E0*(((" explain adequately our decision to lift structural separation requirements generally, based on the level of network unbundling reflected in the approved BOC ONA plans.  ?<California v. FCC, 39 F.3d at 929, 930. In any event, we propose here to consider whether structural separation is necessary or appropriate in the context of video programming  ?@<services. See infra at para. 39.(# We seek comment on"F0*(("  ?<whether the Bell Atlantic condition should be adopted as a permanent safeguard. We also ask parties to address whether the  ?<Computer III network disclosure rules should be modified in any way for application in the video dialtone context.  ?< X4. X` ` Safeguards Against CrossSubsidization of Video  ?<Programming Activities (#`  ?@<!34. In the Video Dialtone Reconsideration Order, the Commission determined that price cap regulation and accounting  ?<safeguards would be effective to prevent crosssubsidization of  C<video dialtonerelated nonregulated activities.GzQ ?0<ԍXVideo Dialtone Reconsideration Order at paras. 179182. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently vacated  ?<in part and remanded the BOC Safeguards Order, on the ground that the Commission had not adequately explored how, without full unbundling of BOC networks from ONA, discrimination could be prevented. The Ninth Circuit also held that the Commission did show that its regime of nonstructural safeguards adequately prevented improper crosssubsidization  ?p<of enhanced services by BOCs. California v. FCC, 39 F.3d  ?8<919 (9th Cir. 1994) (California v. FCC). See BOC Safeguards  ?<Order, supra note 70.(# We tentatively conclude that these safeguards against crosssubsidization apply to LEC provision of video programming just as they would to any other activity not regulated as Title II common carrier service,  ? <and that the existing rules are adequate to forestall cross C <subsidy of the video programming activity.DH` hzQ ?|<ԍXThe Commission's accounting safeguards for nonregulated activities apply to most activities that are not classified as common carrier communications services for Title II purposes. Separation of Costs of Regulated Telephone Service From Costs of Nonregulated Activities. Amendment of Part 31, the Uniform System of Accounts for Class A and Class B Telephone Companies to Provide for Nonregulated Activities and to Provide for Transactions Between Telephone Companies and their Affiliates, 2 FCC Rcd 1298, 130708,  ?%<paras. 6978 (1987) (Joint Cost Order). Thus, those safeguards would apply to LEC video programming activities even if LEC provision of video programming were found to be"'G0*(((" regulated under Title VI.(#D We seek comment on" XH0*((" these tentative conclusions.  ?<"35. Assuming we do not require structural separation, LECs will have the flexibility to conduct video programming activities both within the telephone operating company and through affiliates. For those video programming activities conducted in the operating company, the LEC will be required to record costs  ?x<and revenues in accordance with Part 32 of the Commission's Rules, the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA), and to separate the costs of video programming activity from the costs of regulated telephone service in accordance with the Part 64 joint cost  C<rules.WIXzQ ? <ԍX47 C.F.R.  64.901905.(#W We tentatively conclude that these rules are adequate to prevent crosssubsidization of video programming activities. We also tentatively conclude that we will apply to video programming  ? <activities the rule adopted in the Video Dialtone Reconsideration  ? <Order requiring LECs to amend their cost allocation manuals to reflect video dialtonerelated nonregulated activities within 30 days of receiving video dialtone facilities authorization. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. #36. If a LEC chooses for business reasons to provide video programming through an affiliate, the accounting treatment of  ?4<operating company transactions with that affiliate will be  C<governed by the affiliate transactions rules.NJzQ ?t<ԍX47 C.F.R.  32.27.(#N We seek comment on whether amendments to those rules are needed to safeguard against abuses in transactions between LECs and affiliated video program providers. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we  ? <should amend Section 32.27 to clarify that any video program provider that is considered, because of a LEC's five percent ownership interest, to be a LEC affiliate for purposes of applying video dialtone safeguards will also be considered an  C@<"affiliate" for purposes of the affiliate transactions rule.KX@xzQ ?H<ԍXThe telephone affiliate transaction rules apply to transactions with a company that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with  ?!<the operating company. See 47 C.F.R.  32.9000. A company in which a LEC held a 5 percent ownership interest would not ordinarily fall within this definition. By contrast, the cable rate regulation rules use the five percent benchmark to define an affiliated programmer for the purposes of applying affiliate transaction rules. Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, and Adoption of a"'J0*(((" Uniform Accounting System for Provision of Regulated Cable Service, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 4527, 466768, paras. 26970 (1994).(#Ƨ"@K0*((L"Ԍ ?<ԙX 5.X` ` Structural Separation (#` $37. At divestiture, the Commission initially applied the  ?X<Computer II structural separation requirements to the customer  ? <premises equipment (CPE) and enhanced services operations of the  C<BOCs.LzQ ?` <ԍXPolicy and Rules Concerning the Furnishing of Customer Premises Equipment, Enhanced Services and Cellular Communications Equipment by the Bell Operating Companies, CC  ? <Docket No. 83115, Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d 1117 (1984)  ? <(BOC Separation Order), aff'd sub nom. Illinois Bell Tel.  ?H <Co. v. FCC, 740 F.2d 465 (7th Cir. 1984), aff'd on recon.,  ?<FCC 84252, 49 Fed. Reg. 26056 (1984), aff'd sub nom. North  ?<American Telecommunications Ass'n. v. FCC, 772 F.2d 1282 (7th Cir. 1985).(#ƣ The Commission removed the structural separation  C<requirement for CPE in 1987.M  zQ ?<ԍXFurnishing of Customer Premises Equipment by the Bell Operating Companies and the Independent Telephone Companies,  ?<Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 143 (1987) (BOC Structural  ?T<Relief Order).(# In reaching that decision, the Commission found that the BOCs had a small share of, and could  CH<not dominate, the competitive CPE market;\NHzQ ?x<ԍXId. at 147, paras. 2526, 28.(#\ that concerns about crosssubsidy and discrimination could be addressed through nonstructural safeguards; and that the net benefits to telecommunications users of allowing the BOCs flexibility in marketing CPE were greater than the net benefits of structural  C4 <separation.[O4 0zQ ?<ԍXId. at 14748, paras. 2933.(#[  ? <%38. In the Computer III proceeding, the Commission replaced its requirement that BOCs offer enhanced services through separate subsidiaries with a set of nonstructural safeguards.  ? <Those nonstructural safeguards were intended to protect against discrimination and crosssubsidization while avoiding the  C<inefficiencies associated with structural separation.PXzQ ?$<ԍXComputer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Safeguards; and Tier 1 Local Exchange Company Safeguards, 6 FCC Rcd 174, at para. 1 (1990).(# Using a cost/benefit analysis, the Commission concluded that, when compared with nonstructural safeguards, the costs of structural"DP0*((6"  C<separation outweighed the benefits.mQzQ ?X<ԍXBOC Safeguards Order at 7614, para. & n.169. (#m These costs included decreased efficiency, innovation, and service availability. The Commission determined that the provision of enhanced services on an integrated basis would allow BOCs to capture certain  ?$<efficiencies, and capitalize on economies of scope and cost savings created by removing the need for duplicative personnel for sales, marketing, repair and installation, and research and development. In addition, the Commission believed that structural separation was an unnecessary government intrusion  C <into business judgments regarding corporate organization.gR XzQ ? <ԍXBOC Safeguards Order at 7624, para. 108.(#g &39. We seek comment on whether our approach to these questions should differ when BOCs provide video programming. Specifically, we seek comment as to whether there are aspects of the video programming business that warrant our treating BOC provision of video programming differently from the way we treat BOC provision of CPE and enhanced services generally. We also seek comment on whether any structural separation requirement should apply to LECs other than the BOCs. Commenting parties should specifically identify what aspects warrant different treatment, and what form of separation would be appropriate. Parties should also offer information concerning the relative costs and benefits of structural separation.  ?<X 6.X` ` Pole Attachments (#` '40. The Commission has long been concerned that telephone companies would use their control over poles and conduit space to disadvantage their competition. Section 63.57 of our rules  ?<requires LECs seeking to provide channel service to show in their Section 214 applications that the cable system for which they would be providing channel service had pole attachment rights or conduit space available "at reasonable charges and without undue restrictions on the uses that may be made of the channel by the  C<operator."SzQ ? <ԍ XSee 47 C.F.R.  63.57. See also Video Dialtone  ? <Reconsideration Order at para. 285. We are aware of the pendency of several complaints alleging that LECs proposing to construct video dialtone systems are charging cable  ?0#<operators unreasonable rates. See, e.g., Chronicle Publishing Company v. GTE Hawaiian Telephone Company (GTE Hawaii), Complaint and Request for Declaratory Ruling, P.A. No. 95001 (filed October 7, 1994) and Jones Spacelink of Hawaii, Inc. v. GTE Hawaii, Complaint and Request for Declaratory Ruling, P.A. No. 95002 (filed October 24,"'R0*(((" 1994).(# This rule is intended to prevent LECs from"XS0*(( " foreclosing competition by denying cable systems reasonable  C<access to their pole or conduit space.rTXzQ ?<ԍXVideo Dialtone Reconsideration Order at para. 285. (#r (41. In the Third Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether a similar rule should apply to LECs providing video dialtone service. We now seek additional comment on that  ?<proposal in light of C&P Tel. Co. v. U.S and U S West v. U.S. Parties should address whether incentives to abuse control over pole and conduit space are increased if a LEC decides to offer video programming within its telephone service area. In addition, as requested in the Third Further Notice, advocates of such a rule should propose specific language, and should explain how the rule would prevent anticompetitive conduct.  ?, <  ? <X 7.X` ` Legal and Constitutional Issues (#`  ? <XX` ` a.X Waiver of the CrossOwnership Ban (#  C<)42. Section 533(b)(4) of the Communications ActRUzQ ?<ԍX47 U.S.C.  533(b)(4).(#R provides that, upon a "showing of good cause," the Commission may waive the 1984 Cable Act's crossownership ban. Under Section 533(b)(4), a waiver "shall be granted by the Commission upon a finding that the issuance of such waiver is justified by the  ?<particular circumstances demonstrated by the petitioner, taking  C<into account the policy of this subsection."BVxzQ ?<ԍXId.(#B In GTE California,  ?<Inc. v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found moot a case in which the FCC had rescinded a waiver  C$<granted under Section 533(b)(4).uW$zQ ?<ԍXSee GTE California v. FCC, 39 F.3d at 942.(#u In the course of so holding, and in response to GTE's argument that the waiver should not have been rescinded because Section 533(b) is unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit stated that "GTECA did not present the constitutional issue to the Commission at a point in this proceeding where it could have tried to obviate the  ?<constitutional question by granting discretionary relief, such as  C<a permanent waiver."JXzQ ?$<ԍXId. at 946.(#J  ?4<*43. In GTE California v. FCC, the Ninth Circuit raises the question whether the Commission may establish conditions under"( X0*((F#" which it will waive the telcocable crossownership ban in order to obviate potential constitutional difficulties. For example, the Commission may decide to authorize any telephone company to provide video programming, whether or not it has obtained an injunction, if it complies with the safeguards we will establish in this proceeding. Our tentative conclusion is that such a reading of Section 533(b)(4) is consistent with the terms of the statute. "Good cause" is commonly interpreted to include changed circumstances, and the circumstances that led us to institute the crossownership rule in 1970 have changed dramatically. The cable industry is no longer a fledgling industry. Instead, as the Supreme Court recently recognized, "Congress found that over 60 percent of the households with television sets subscribe to cable . . . and for those households cable has replaced overthe ? <air broadcast television as the primary provider of video  C <programming."Y zQ ?<ԍXTurner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445, 2454 (1994).(#ƅ  ? <  ?L <+44. We also tentatively conclude that the safeguards we will establish will constitute "particular circumstances . . ., taking into account the policy" of Section 533(b), under which waivers are warranted. We do not intend to waive the telcocable crossownership rule altogether, so that telephone companies may purchase cable companies that do not face competition and offer their own programming via a monopoly cable system. Rather, and in fulfillment of the policy underlying Section 533(b), we intend to promote competition in the multichannel video programming market by establishing particular conditions under which telephone companies may establish video dialtone systems that will compete with existing cable operators, thus providing  ?<consumers with a choice of multichannel video systems.  ?<<,45. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of  ?<Columbia Circuit recognized, in NCTA v. FCC (1990), that "the  C<policy of this subsection is to promote competition."cZ zQ ?|<ԍXNCTA v. FCC (1990), 914 F.2d at 287.(#c However, in that decision the D.C. Circuit also appeared to give a narrow reading to the scope of the waiver provision. Specifically, the court of appeals remanded a decision in which the Commission had granted a waiver because the court concluded that the Commission had not shown that the participation of an affiliate of a  ?<telephone company in constructing transmission facilities was "essential to the success" of an experimental video programming  C <project.J[ zQ ?P&<ԍXId. at 289.(#J But at that time no court had declared Section 533(b) unconstitutional, and the D.C. Circuit did not consider whether a" @[0*(('"  ?<broader reading of Section 533(b)(4) was appropriate to render the provision constitutional. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that "a statute is to be construed where fairly  CX<possible so as to avoid substantial constitutional questions."\XzQ ?<ԍXUnited States v. XCitement Video, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 464, 467  ?x<(1994) (U.S. v. XCitement Video).(#ƹ  ?$<A reading of the waiver provision that authorizes telephone companies that comply with the safeguards we will establish to provide video programming should render Section 533(b) constitutional, because in those circumstances any burden on  ?D<speech by telephone companies will be minimal. Hence, under U.S.  ? <v. XCitement Video, a broad interpretation of Section 533(b)(4) seems warranted. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  ?d <XX` ` b.X Constitutionality of Proposed Safeguards (# -46. As the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated  ? <in C&P Tel. Co. v. U.S., in order for a contentneutral government regulation of speech, such as the crossownership ban, to be constitutional, that regulation must be "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and ... leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the  C<information."']  zQ ?T<ԍXC&P Tel. Co. v. U.S. slip op. at 31 (citing Ward v. Rock  ?<Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (quoting Clark v.  ?<Community for Creative NonViolence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984))).(#' The court determined that the government's interests in promoting competition and in facilitating the availability of multiple information sources are significant. The court decided, however, that the ban against telephone  ?<companies operating as cable service providers was not narrowly tailored and that there were available less burdensome  CX<alternatives to the ban.d^XzQ ?<ԍXC&P Tel. Co. v. U.S. slip op. at 38. (#d The court observed that the Commission had already identified one possible alternative in its recommendation to Congress regarding repeal of the ban: Congress  ?<could limit the telephone company to a fixed percentage of available channels, while requiring the remainder of channels to  CD<be made available to others on a common carrier basis._xDzQ ?l"<ԍXId. at 3839 & n.34 (citing Video Dialtone Reconsideration  ?4#<Order). While the court discussed the availability of options less burdensome than the crossownership ban, it did not address the constitutionality of any such alternative.  ?%<The court cited the alternative "not to imply its constitutionality, but only to show [the ban] itself is  ?'<unconstitutional." Id. at 39 n.34.(# Finally,"D_0*((j" the court determined that, under the ban, there did not exist for  C<telephone companies ample alternative methods of communication.I`zQ ? <ԍXId. at 40.(#I  ?\<.47. In U S West v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Fourth Circuit that (assuming it served a significant government interest) the ban was not sufficiently  ?<narrowly tailored. The court found that the evidence submitted by U S West demonstrated that the procompetitive goals of the ban can be "achieved through a variety of less speechrestrictive  C <means."ba XzQ ? <ԍXU S West v. U.S. slip op. at 15910.(#b Unlike the Fourth Circuit, however, the Ninth Circuit, determining that it was unnecessary to do so, did not reach the  ?<issue of the availability of "ample alternative channels of  Ch <communication."Lbh zQ ?<ԍXId. at 15913.(#L  ? </48. With respect to all proposals set forth above for safeguards on LEC provision of video programming, we seek comment on whether such safeguards, whether individually, or in any combination, would be consistent with the First Amendment, the  ?<Fourth Circuit's decision in C&P Tel. Co. v. U.S., and the Ninth  ?<Circuit's decision in U S West v. U.S.  ?t<  IV. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS ă 049. This Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a  ?<nonrestricted noticeandcomment rulemaking proceeding. Ex  ?<parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in  ?$<the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.  ?|<  V. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă 150. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.  601612, the Commission's Initial Regulatory  ?<Flexibility Analysis with respect to the Fourth Further Notice of  ?d<Proposed Rulemaking is as follows:  ?<251. Reason for Action: The Commission is issuing this  ?<Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider whether additional or modified safeguards and rule changes may be necessary or appropriate in the context of the video dialtone  ? <regulatory framework, when a telephone company provides video programming directly to subscribers in its telephone service area. "!xb0*((("Ԍ ?<ԙ352. Objectives: The objective of the Fourth Further Notice  ?<of Proposed Rulemaking is to provide an opportunity for public comment and to provide a record for a Commission decision on the issues stated above.  ?<453. Legal Basis: The Fourth Further Notice of Proposed  ?<Rulemaking is adopted pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4, 201205, 215, 218, 220, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154, 201205, 215, 218, 220, and 303(r).  ?<554. Description, potential impact, and number of small  ?` <entities affected: Any rule changes that might occur as a result of this proceeding could impact entities which are small business entities, as defined in Section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. After evaluating the comments in this proceeding, the Commission will further examine the impact of any rule changes on small entities and set forth our findings in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send  ?<a copy of this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business  ?h<Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5  ?<U.S.C.  601, et seq.  ?<655. Reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance  ?P<requirement: None.  ?<756. Federal rules which overlap, duplicate or conflict with  ?<the Commission's proposal: None.  ?8<857. Any significant alternatives minimizing impact on small  ?<entities and consistent with state objectives: The Fourth  ?<Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on a variety of alternatives.  ? <958. Comments are solicited: Written comments are requested on this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing  ?x<deadlines set for comments on the other issues in this Fourth  ?@<Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of the Notice to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the  ?(#<Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  601, et seq.  ?#<  ?$< VI. COMMENT FILING DATES ă  ?H&<:59. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before March 6,"'b0*((/" 1995, and reply comments on or before March 27, 1995. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original and nine copies. Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Peggy Reitzel of the Common Carrier Bureau, Room 544, and James Yancey of the Cable Services Bureau, Room 408C. Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.  ?H <  VII. ORDERING CLAUSES ă ;60. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201205, 215, and 218 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201205, 215, 218, and 220, a FOURTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IS HEREBY ADOPTED. ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,VWilliam F. Caton ` `  hh,VActing Secretary