WPCA 2MBVRKZ3|| 7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5Si (C101)HPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\s& JXP2> K Z3|| "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5Si (C101)HPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\s& JXP2 pKzK"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNA.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""=K4K]6K8K:"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9`XX`SK``-3`Su``K`XKS``}``SP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN">WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNCppCV]?R]]]]]4<]8<]8??RR]@@p]]pCppCoii?R]8"{{{{]ple]ipp]"i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuO{{ti?Gti{ittp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOuOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu匱T錌TOguF"u錇~u匌u",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d|8|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddxxdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCxCddoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNopddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddxxddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCxCddoddCdYds`xUvdddCCCCxoxoYNYYYN8YooYdYxxdxddYYxoxxxNdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCxdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2KkKYKO[f ]Ki"i~'^DOuuOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuOOuۨYuۨ騨OAOuOuggOuAOAăugYOuuug]3]yO=yOOO=OOOOOOuOAuuuuu騨gggggVAVAVAVAuuuuuuuuuuuuuggyggggguuuyuYAYYOYyyAiO]Auu稨gggYYYywO騨ygggOYOu=uuN?NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTT|uOuuuuuuFOuFOuFOOuuuPPuu錱T錌TOuuF"u錊~u匌u"i~'^6?i]]???]i1?14]]]]]]]]]]??iii]{{tG]{ti{{?4?l]?]iRiR?]i4?i4i]iiRG?i]]]RK)Ka?1al???1??????]?i4]]]]]R{R{R{R{RE4E4E4E4i]]]]iiii]]i]]]]ri]]]RRaR{R{R{R{R]]]a]ilG4GiG?Giiaai{4{T{?{K{4iii]]RRRiGiGiGia{_{?{liiiiiia{R{R{Ri{?iiG{?]1]]>2>WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNCppCc]?]]]]]]8?]8?]8??]]]@@p]]pCppCvii?]]8"{{{{]pne]ipp]",tB^ f ^)6DUUzp)))Uz))))UUUUUUUUUU))zNz_\\_NK__)N\G~b_U_\XX_U~_UU)))\\)KKGKG6KK""K"pKKKK3D6KGwGK=Q\QU4UUUUU)UUUUUU\UQ)_K_K_K_K_Ks\GNGNGNGNG))))))))bK_K_K_K_K_K_K_K_KUK_K_I_K_KUK_KUK_K_U_K\G\G\U\U__NGUUUUNG_K_U_U_U_U_U_U)"UUUU4QwDUU\UG"G7UUG6G!bKmbKbU_K_U~s\3\3\UXDXDXDXUX>X6XU_\_K_U_U_K_K~wUUU=U=U=_UUUbUXUXU\\_)\\)))WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN\TU6NQQUUU33zzU33\\Tz3))@@Uz,,UUpp\\\_|{TXz)@\3"\Qzz\zz4z\==mz)\_UfUz\)U\XiwbzpNm\QQ))))_f\bf\bNUUN_ib),\\_~fbfsN_iiUbmmQXUUb_X~_N_)U_UUbf~~))UUUU__UUUUUU)i\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu"i~'^DOuuOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuOOuۨYuۨ騨OAOuO{{tG]{ti{{]3]yO=yOOO=OOOOOOuOAuuuuu騨gggggVAVAVAVAuuuuuuuuuuuuuggyggggguuuyuYAYYOYyyAiO]Auu稨gggYYYywO騨ygggOYOu=uuN?NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTT|uOuuuuuuFOuFOuFOOuuuPPuu錱T錌TOuuF"u錊~u匌u2I}kK,lf wnl yTimes New RomanCG TimesUnivers CondensedUnivers Condensed BoldCG Times BoldTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCourierCourier ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic"i~'^:LpddDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppdLd||p|||D8DpdDddXdXDdp88d8pdddLL8pXdXLD,DpD4ppDDD4DDDDDDdDd8dddddXXXXXL8L8L8L8pddddpppp|Xdddd|Xd|ddddXXpXXXXXdddpdppL8LdLDLdpppd|8|h|D|L|8pppddLLLpLpLpLpp|l|8|ppppppp|p|L|L|Ld|DppL|D|d4ddC8CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHddLdddddd4\4  pG;7nC:,P6,Yq0c\  P6G;0P@|ND,_|\  P6G;P@ND,P4  pG;3g>6,P0g4  pG;0@ND,P4  pG;<?xxx,|x6X@`7X@ ?xxx,Ρx6Nhez7XH6jC:,̃Xj9 xOG;XDy.f81,Bf_ pi7^y0 +Y #B #BCX-A-2 {?"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxIxIxSxSxqnIoSoSnISSSSS]]?.S]SSA]]SS]n/nCoSoAo.x]x]x]SS{xIxIxS]?]A]?]SnCn9oSx]x]x]x]x]x]xxSnIoJnIx]oSx]]SoSxSq8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSddSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔0S88xdxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxodxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxdo]d]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxddSdSSoJxJodx]dddxoASxxdJddddz88SSSSxSSSxxxd8dSJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?k X'#X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í ÍM4  X4 ` `  #XR PPQ|XP#Federal Communications Commission`(#_FCC 99137 ă   yxdddyMmJ Y4#[R  PQQ P##XP7  PTRQ|XP#r#&VxPSQ &P#PAGE #XR PTQ|XP#у1  ӊ #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#+`Before the  X' Federal Communications Commissionă  X'FWashington, D.C. ă In the Matter of) )  X_4Calling Party Pays Service Offering)ppWT Docket No. 97207  XH4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:0 k} {O"'Ѝ See, e.g., AirTouch Comments to NOI at 1718; Omnipoint Comments to NOI at 7. a number of commenters point to the availability of various alternatives to LEC billing and collection, such as credit cards, third party clearing houses, and other utility" >0*&&qq\"  X4companies that serve the same customers,?k} {Oy'Ѝ See e.g., AT&T Wireless Comments to NOI at 23; BellSouth Reply Comments to CTIA Petition at 6. as alternative approaches.@\Zk} {O 'ԍ For instance, CTIA does not ask the FCC to regulate billing and collection. CTIA Letter, Dec. 16, 1998.  {O'See also CTIA Reply Comments to NOI at 56, asserting that it is not necessary at this time to require the LECs to provide billing and collection services for CPP when they only need to provide the data necessary for billing. As discussed below,nA~k} {O/'Ѝ See below paras.  B&C-155 ש B&C-268 .n we seek comment on the need for Commission regulation of LEC billing and collection services, and the legal basis for such action.  X4s29. In sum, it is our tentative view that it is in the public interest for the Commission to adopt limited rules with respect to CPP. Despite interest in CPP by a number of wireless carriers over a fairly long period, CPP has made only modest inroads into the predominant called party pays regime in the United States. We believe this may be a result of a combination of problems, including calling party notification and billing and collection. It is our desire to remove possible obstacles to CPP, so that all consumers, including those with disabilities, will have an opportunity to choose to use CPP offerings. Only in this way will carriers have the opportunity to initiate broad scale CPP offerings and allow consumers in the marketplace to determine the real world benefits of CPP. 4` <hDp Lx !(#T$%&X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:; U.K. Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Report on References under Section 13 of the Telecommunications Act of 1984 on the Charges Made by Cellnet and  {O%'Vodaphone for Terminating Calls from FixedLine Networks, Dec. 1998 (visited Dec. 15, 1998)"%0*&&%"  {O'; U.K. Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Report on a Reference under Section 13 of the Telecommunications Act of 1984 on the Charges Made by British Telecommunication, PLC, for Calls from Its Subscribers to Phones Connected to the Networks of Cellnet and  {O'Vodaphone, Dec. 1998 (visited Dec. 15, 1998) ; Price Remains  {O'Key Element in Mobile Purchase, Telecoms Pricing Bulletin, Issue 28/29, Nov. 25, 1998, available in 1998 WL 15562369.x For example, the U.K. Office of"F0*&&qq1" Telecommunications (OFTEL) recently ordered reductions in the amount BT charges its wireline customers for calls to wireless phones, and reductions in the amount two wireless  X4carriers, Vodaphone and Cellnet, charge BT to terminate its calls on their wireless networks.Fk} {O 'Ѝ Sylvia Dennis, UK Telecoms Regulator Bites Hard on BT Call Charges, Newsbytes, Apr. 6, 1999,  {O 'available in 1999 WL 5121009. As noted, although a CPP offering may provide a calling party with notification of the rates for a CPP call and an opportunity to terminate the CPP call before being charged for it, the calling party is not a CMRS subscriber and lacks any direct control over the rates it is charged by a CMRS carrier. Moreover, there may be situations where the calling party will have no choice but to complete a CPP call to a mobile subscriber notwithstanding the notification of the CPP rate and the opportunity to terminate the CPP call before completion. In these situations, the notification may not serve to protect a calling party from excessive rates. Accordingly, we urge commenters to discuss whether market conditions exist or are likely to develop in the United States that would exert competitive pressure on CPP rates to be charged a calling party by a CMRS carrier. Under this approach, we would defer regulatory intervention until there is clear evidence that Commission action is necessary to resolve rate issues. We seek comment on any other approaches that would help safeguard consumers who wish to place calls to CPP subscribers. In this regard, we note that our rules require that the rates charged for calls placed through TRS be no greater than the rates  Xy4charged for a functionally equivalent call that does not use TRS facilities.;yk} yO'4` <hDp Lx !(#T$%&X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:63. Finally, we seek comment on whether calls placed through TRS facilities, including those from pay telephones, or calls between two TTYs, implicate any additional billing and collection issues that may need to be addressed in this proceeding. Commenters are requested to be as specific as possible about the nature of the TRS and/or TTY related problems in billing and collection and should propose solutions. We also solicit comment on any other problems or issues that may affect consumers, including those with disabilities, if CPP were to be implemented on a broader scale by wireless carriers in the United States. " "z0*&&qq"Ԍ X' s2. Potential Jurisdictional Bases for Commission Action  X4s?64. P67YB B&C/JURIS Assuming that we conclude in this proceeding as a policy matter that we should require the provision of LEC billing and collection for CPP in the U.S., we seek comment concerning our statutory authority to promulgate such a requirement. Specifically, we seek comment on several potential sources of jurisdiction raised by the commenters in response to  Xv4the Notice of Inquiry.  XJ4s@65. P68TR  Some commenters, such as AirTouch, argue that we have ancillary jurisdiction  X34pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Act]38 {O 'Ѝ See 47 U.S.C.  4(i), 303(r).] to mandate LEC billing and collection for  X 4CPP.~ Z8 {O' 'Ѝ See AirTouch Comments to NOI at 1821; Vanguard Comments to NOI at 6.~ AirTouch points out that when the Commission detariffed LEC billing and collection services in 1986, it nevertheless noted that it retained ancillary jurisdiction over such  X 4services. 8 {O'ԍ AirTouch Comments to NOI at 18 (citing 1986 Detariffing Decision, 102 FCC 2d at 1150, 1168 n.47  yOU'(para. 32) (1986)). ľ AirTouch contends that the exercise of jurisdiction over LEC billing and collection in the CPP context would further the statutory objectives of the Communications  X 4Act.H F8 yO'ԍ AirTouch Comments to NOI at 19.H We seek comment on whether the statutory objectives of the Act support the assertion  X 4of ancillary jurisdiction here,= 8 yO0'ԍ 47 U.S.C.  4(i).= and on AirTouch's contentions that the exercise of jurisdiction over LEC billing and collection in the CPP context is distinguishable from other instances where the Commission has declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over LEC billing and collection. Finally, we seek  P79WX comment on whether other provisions of the Act, such as Section  XM4332,<Mf 8 yOd'ԍ 47 U.S.C.  332.< provide an independent jurisdictional basis for a federal requirement regarding CPPrelated billing and collection.  X4 sA66. P79WX  We also seek comment on whether we have jurisdiction under any of the theories described above over the provision of billing information by LECs to support CPPrelated billing and collection by others. Some commenters argue that in the case of ILECs, we have authority to require the provision of billing information under Section 251(c)(3) of the Act, which requires that ILECs provide nondiscriminatory access to "network elements" on an  X4unbundled basis.L 8 yO<%'Ѝ 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(3).L These commenters argue that billing and collection information"# 0*&&qq9"  X4constitutes a unbundled network element (UNE) that is subject to this statutory requirement.q8 yOy'Ѝ SBC Comments to NOI at 45; CTIA Reply Comments to NOI at 56.q We seek comment on this view, particularly in light of the fact that the definition of network element in Section 3(29) of the Act includes information sufficient for billing and  X4collection.KX8 yO'Ѝ 47 U. S. C. 153(29).K We plan to apply the criteria we develop in the UNE Second Notice we  X4initiated as a result of the remand from the Supreme Court's decision in Iowa Utilities Board  X4in order to determine whether such information would need to be unbundled under the  Xz4statutory necessary and impair standard.a\z8 yO 'ԍ Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket  {O 'No. 9698, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 9970 (released April 16, 1999) (UNE Second  {O 'Notice); AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999).a  XL4sB67. P79WX  Assuming that a LEC is providing CPPrelated billing and collection services or information, we also seek comment on whether we have jurisdiction to require that LEC to provide such services or information on a reasonable, nondiscriminatory basis. Assuming that we were to determine that CPPrelated billing information qualifies as a UNE subject to Section 251(c)(3), the Act requires that incumbent LECs provide nondiscriminatory access to  X 4UNEs on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.I 8 yO'Ѝ 47 USC  251(c)(3).I In view of this requirement, we seek comment on whether, if an ILEC elects to provide billing and collection for CPP for any CMRS carrier, the ILEC must offer the same services on a  X4reasonable, nondiscriminatory basis to all CMRS carriers who request such services.8 yO'Ѝ We note that in the payphone context, we have imposed a similar nondiscrimination requirement on  {O'LECs. See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96128, Report and Order 11 FCC Rcd 20541, 20616 (para. 149) (1996) (concluding that if a LEC provides basic, tariffed payphone services that will only function with billing and collection services from the LEC, the LEC must provide the billing and collection services it provides to its own payphone operations to independent payphone providers). Also, prior to the 1996 Act, the Commission decided that it would regulate the provision of billing name and address (BNA) information as a common carrier service under Title II to ensure that LECs would provide such information on a  {O#'nondiscriminatory basis. See Policies and Rules Concerning Local Exchange Carrier Validation and Billing Information for Joint Use Calling Cards, CC Docket No. 91115, Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 4478, 4483 (para. 20) (1993).  Further, we invite comment on whether we have authority, based on ancillary jurisdiction or any other statutory provisions, to impose similar nondiscrimination requirements with respect  XO4to CPPrelated billing information on incumbent LECs and on nonincumbent LECs, i.e., competitive LECs and LECs serving rural areas, who are not subject to Section 251(c)(3).  X#4 "#$0*&&qq"Ԍ X4sC68. P79WX   B&C-2  Finally, we seek comment on jurisdictional issues relating to state regulation of LEC CPPrelated billing and collection. Under Section 332 of the Act, states are preempted from regulating entry by CMRS providers. Similarly, Section 253(a) prohibits any state or local statute or regulation that constitutes a barrier to entry to any telecommunications service provider, although Section 253(b) preserves intact state regulatory authority to safeguard the  X4rights of consumers.M8 yO'Ѝ 47 U.S.C.  253(a)(b).M Some commenters contend that if a state were to prohibit LECs from providing billing and collection services in support of CPP, this would effectively preclude  X_4CMRS carriers from providing CPP within the state, and would therefore constitute de facto entry regulation subject to preemption under Section 332 or a barrier to entry under Section  X34253.JZ3X8 {O< 'Ѝ See AT&T Wireless Comments to NOI at 67; CTIA Comments to NOI at 1224; GTE Comments to NOI at 1821; PCIA Comments to NOI at 59; Source One Comments to NOI at 78; Sprint Spectrum Comments to NOI at 1216; Vanguard Comments to NOI at 1417. 47 U.S.C.  253, 332.J We seek comment on this view. In addition, some commenters point out that the California PUC has recently denied a petition by AirTouch to compel Pacific Bell to provide billing and collection for a CPP trial based on Pacific Bell's tariff for billing and collection of  X 4wireless services. z8 yO'Ѝ AirTouch Cellular v. Pacific Bell, Decision 9812086, Case 9712044, Cal. Pub. Util. Comm'n (Dec. 17, 1998). The denial was based on language in a California PUC decision that prohibits a LEC from billing its wireline customers at wireless rates for calls placed to  X 4wireless phones.B 8 {OC'Ѝ Id. at 2.B We seek comment on whether this decision raises jurisdictional issues that we should address.  X{'  E. CPP, Interconnection, and Reciprocal Compensation  Xd4  XM4sD69. P55VZ  The Notice of Inquiry also sought comment regarding whether the implementation of reciprocal compensation for LECCMRS interconnection requirements provides a sufficient  X!4market incentive for CMRS carriers not to charge their subscribers for incoming calls._!d 8 {O6'Ѝ NOI, 12 FCC Rcd at 1769596 (para. 8)._ The  X 4Notice of Inquiry noted that CPP and reciprocal compensation may address a similar  issue regarding the means by which a CMRS provider recoups the cost of completing a call that  X4does not originate on the CMRS network.F 8 {O"'ԍ Id. at 17697 (para. 9).F The Commission asked for comment regarding whether reciprocal compensation would eliminate or reduce the need for CPP. "% 0*&&qq\"Ԍ X4sE70. A few commenters contend that there is no need for the Commission to undertake any specific actions geared toward facilitating CPP service implementation because  X4compensation is already provided through reciprocal compensation mechanisms.9Z8 {OK'Ѝ See, e.g., Rural Telephone Companies' Comments to NOI at 35. See also, NARUC Resolution at 2 (reciprocal compensation arrangements should have the effect of equalizing the costs of call transfers between wireless and wireline carriers).9 The Rural Telephone Companies assert that because Section 251(b)(5) of the Act requires all LECs to establish reciprocal compensation arrangements with other telecommunications carriers for the  X4transport and termination of traffic,L8 yO( 'Ѝ 47 U.S.C.  251(b)(5).L reciprocal compensation ensures CMRS carriers that they are compensated for costs they incur in terminating calls originating on the LEC network to their wireless subscribers by placing the burden of paying termination costs on the LEC  XH4rather than on the wireless subscriber.cHz8 yOs'Ѝ Rural Telephone Companies' Comments to NOI at 3.c These commenters argue that with such percall costs of termination recovered from interconnecting carriers, the implementation of CPP service would assess additional charges associated with termination of calls and would result  X 4in double recovery by CMRS carriers at the expense of wireline callers.C 8 {O'Ѝ Id. at 34C By contrast, GTE adds that reciprocal compensation interconnection arrangements do not obviate the need for CPP because reciprocal compensation is designed only to recoup the cost of transport and switching, it does not provide recovery for investment in plant or for operational costs in  X 4running a CMRS network.Q 8 yO'Ѝ GTE Comments to NOI at 6, n.4.Q Similarly, in response to the Rural Telephone Companies, CTIA maintains that CPP is a service distinct from interconnection termination and that the view of the Rural Telephone Companies fails to account for most of the costs associated with providing wireless services, and, in particular, the fixed costs of providing them. These costs, according to CTIA, are recovered through charges to consumers rather than through reciprocal  X44interconnection termination charges.U4, 8 yO'Ѝ CTIA Reply Comments to NOI at 34.U  X4sF71. We agree with those parties who contend that, under existing interconnection agreement, compensation for transport and termination generally does not cover the costs of terminating airtime. As a result, we do not believe that the availability of reciprocal compensation renders moot any issues regarding CPP.  X4sG72.  ARC-3  Some parties contend that, although CPP can be distinguished from and is not the same thing as reciprocal compensation, CPPlike service can be offered by expanding existing"|& 0*&&qq"  X4interconnection agreements.X8 yOy'Ѝ Sprint Spectrum Comments to NOI at 9.X Sprint Spectrum indicates that implementation of CPP through  X4interconnection agreements is done in Europe and elsewhere.X8 {O'Ѝ See Sprint Spectrum Comments to NOI at 78; see also S. Zehle, Calling Party Pays Mobile Tariffing  {O'an International View, ProdataĩPartners (Apr. 1997). Under these agreements, the caller is billed by the LEC based on published LEC rates for fixedtomobile calls. The LEC is solely entitled to the caller's account and has sole responsibility for bad debt. The LEC pays the wireless carrier an interconnection charge to terminate traffic on the wireless network. The interconnection charges are determined either by regulators or negotiated  Xv4bilaterally by the carriers involved.=v8 {O 'Ѝ  Id.= Under the European model, the wireless carrier for the called party imposes a wireless termination access charge on the LEC, or the wireless carrier originating the call. The LEC or the wireless carrier serving the originating caller may, in turn, bill its customer, the calling party, to recoup the charge (if it so chose). Such implementation of a CPP service would amount to asymmetrical compensation, such that the symmetrical rates between wireline and wireless carriers for transport and termination under a reciprocal compensation arrangement would not be operative. With the asymmetrical, or nonsymmetrical, compensation approach, CMRS carriers would not need to recover their costs with a distinct airtime charge for use of the CMRS carriers' network if all of the costs related to completing a call to a wireless phone are included in the asymmetrical rate.  Xy4sH73.  ARC-1  There are several issues that arise regarding the possible provision of CPPlike services using this approach. First, it is not at all clear that our analysis above regarding the CMRS character of the call and of the rates charged the calling party would be correct. Under this approach, the calling party is legally the customer of the originating carrier, such as the LEC, and pays charges determined by the LEC, not the CMRS carrier. Second, it is not clear how interconnection agreements would need to be changed, and what rule changes would be needed. Third, this approach raises questions about whether CPP offerings would be optional offerings of CMRS providers. The providers in the record have indicated that they intend CPP offerings to be optional offerings for their subscribers, noting that a significant number of their subscribers, such as small businesses, would not want their customers to have to pay CPPrelated charges for calling them. Under the interconnection approach, it would appear that there would have to be either: a single, higher rate for all calls to the customers of that CMRS provider (which would result in all calls being CPPlike calls), or a more complex interconnection agreement requiring two different termination rates to the same CMRS provider " one for CPPlike calls, and another, lower rate for other calls. Existing interconnection agreements in many parts of the nation would presumably need to be" 'F0*&&qq"  X4renegotiated if wireless carriers sought to establish asymmetrical rates for compensation.8 yOy'Ѝ A number of current reciprocal compensation schemes are being renegotiated in order to bring wireline carriers into compliance with Section 51.703(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  51.703(b). That section prohibits LECs from charging other carriers for LEC traffic that originates on the LEC's network. CMRS carriers have customarily arranged for LECs to charge them, not the calling party, for any local toll charges for calls originating on the LEC network. This payment arrangement is known as reverse billing. With such renegotiation occurring, some LECs are apparently beginning to bill their customers a separate toll charge for  {O)'initial wireline access to the wireless network. See e.g., B. Rios, Calls to Cell Phones May Have Toll, Detroit  {O'Free Press, Sept. 30, 1998, at F1 (describing LEC charge in Michigan to wireline calling party); Some Will Pay  {O'for Calls from Home to Cell, Indianapolis Star, Oct. 21, 1998, at A14; J. Healey, New Toll on Calls to  {O 'Mobile Phones, San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 1, 1999, at A1(2).  Fourth, there are questions regarding how to resolve questions of customer notification, and rates to calling parties that potentially would result in answers different from those for CPP offerings.  X4sI74.  ARC-2  ARC-4  Thus, we invite parties generally to comment on these and any other issues relating to the possible provision of CPPlike service by CMRS carriers wanting to use an interconnection approach. We also seek comment on the impact of such an approach on LECs, including competitive LECs (CLECs), and upon CMRS (such as paging) providers.  X 4 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Ń  X ' A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  X 4sJ75. P90YC  As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),A h 8 yO'ԍ 5 U.S.C.  603.A  X 4the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)L 8 yOP'ԍ The IRFA is attached as Appendix B.L of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. We request written public comment on the analysis. In order to fulfill the mandate of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 regarding the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we ask a number of questions in our IRFA regarding the prevalence of small businesses in the affected industries. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this proceeding, but they must  X4have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. "( 0*&&qq]"Ԍ X' B. Ex Parte Presentations  X4sK76. P93PS  For purposes of this permitbutdisclose notice and comment rulemaking proceed X4ing, members of the public are advised that ex parte presentations are permitted, except during  X4the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed under the Commission's Rules.8 {O'Ѝ See generally Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).  Xx' C. Pleading Dates  XJ4sL77. P94RV  Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules,SJ"8 yO 'Ѝ 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419.S interested  X34parties may file comments on or before August 18, 1999 , and reply comments on or before  X 4September 8, 1999 . Comments and reply comments should be filed in WT Docket No. 97207. All relevant and timely comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in this proceeding. To file formally, interested parties must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If interested parties want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, they must file an original plus nine copies. Interested parties should send comments and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to David Siehl, Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  X64sM78. Comments may also be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing  X4System (ECFS).8 {O'Ѝ See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and a reference to WT Docket No. 97207. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet EMail. To obtain filing instructions for EMail comments, commenters should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, get form .  XP4sN79. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, Court Yard Level, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies of comments and reply comments are available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: " )D0*&&qq" International Transcription Services, Inc., CYB400, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  X' D. Further Information  X4sO80. P97TN  For further information concerning this rulemaking proceeding, contact David Siehl or Joseph Levin at (202) 4181310, TTY at (202) 4187233, Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.  X14! VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X 4sP81. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the action reflected in the Declaratory Ruling IS TAKEN pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 403, and Section 1.2 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.2.  X4sQ82. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Declaratory Ruling is effective immediately upon release of this Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  XK4sR83. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that parties have 30 days from the date of publication of the Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register to seek review of the Declaratory Ruling.  X4 P98YM sS84. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the actions reflected in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of this Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ARE TAKEN pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 201, 202, 303(r), and 332 of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 157, 201, 202, 303(r), 332.  X|4sT85. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposed regulatory changes described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and that comment is sought on these proposals.  X74  X 4sU86. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,  X 4Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601612 (1980).  * s44` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION s44` `  Magalie Roman Salas s44` `  Secretary"Q%*0*&&qqr#"  X4E8 Y4#[R  P}Q P##XP7  PT}Q|XP#,X4` <hDp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: .10*o(o(qq."Ԍs sBecause we find that there is some uncertainty about the regulatory status of CPP, we issue a Declaratory Ruling clarifying that service offered with a CPP option, as defined in paragraph 2 of the Notice, still qualifies as CMRS service. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion of this Notice, we first consider important calling party notification issues. We there consider a uniform notification standard to protect calling parties by providing them with sufficient information to make an informed decision before completing a CPP call to a wireless subscriber and incurring charges. We also ask how we may work cooperatively with the states to develop such a notification system. We also seek comment on possible additional measures. Second, we discuss and seek comment on whether the proposed notification is sufficient to create an impliedinfact contract between the caller and the CMRS carrier. Third, we discuss whether there is any need for Commission action to protect callers from unreasonably high charges for CPP calls. Fourth, we discuss how CMRS providers may bill and collect from the calling party for calls to CPP subscribers, including LEC billing and collection. We also seek comment at various points on issues relating to the accessibility of CPP offerings to people with disabilities, including Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) and text telephone (TTY) users.  Xb' B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules  X44sThe proposed action is authorized under P90QK  Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 201, 202, 303(r), and 332 of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 157, 201, 202, 303(r),  X4332.  X' C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which  X'the Proposed Rules Will Apply 4` <hDp Lx !(#T$%&4` <hDp Lx !(#T$%&sThe RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of  X|4the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.o|k} yO'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 5 U.S.C.  603(b)(3). o The RFA generally defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms  XN4 small business, small organization, and small governmental jurisdiction.lNXk} {OW'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Id.  601(6). l In addition, the term small business has the same meaning as the term small business concern under  X 4the Small   Business Act.k k} yO"'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of small business concern in 15 U.S.C.  632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register. 5 U.S.C.  601(3).k A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned" /0*&&qq" and  H operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional  X4criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).~/ yOb'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996).~ A small organization is generally any notforprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not  X4dominant in its field.oX/ yO'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 5 U.S.C.  601(4). o Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small  X4organizations.  / yO= 'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Economic Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).  Small governmental jurisdiction generally means governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of  Xv4less than 50,000.l v@/ yOg 'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 5 U.S.C.  601(5). l As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the  X_4United States. _/ yO'ԍ #]\  PCɒP#U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Governments. This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or  XH496 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.Y H` / {OY'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Id.Y The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (96 percent) are small entities. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by the proposed rules.  X '  X 'COMMON CARRIER SERVICES AND RELATED ENTITIES sThe most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless  Xb4entities, appears to be data the Commission publishes in its Trends in Telephone Service  XM4report. M / {O'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (Feb. 19, 1999). According to data in the most recent report, there are 3,528 interstate carriers.[ML / {OJ 'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Id. [  X64These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service  X!4providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay  X 4telephone operators , providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.  X4  X4 sThe SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing Radiotelephone Communications and Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone to be small"0 +''qq"  X4businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees.KvY {Oy'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R. 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 4812 and 4813. See also Executive  {OC'Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987).K Below, we discuss the total estimated number of telephone companies falling within the two categories and the number of small businesses in each, and we then attempt to refine further those estimates to correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly used under our rules. sAlthough some affected incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) may have 1,500 or fewer employees, we do not believe that such entities should be considered small entities within the meaning of the RFA because they are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, and therefore by definition not small entities or small business concerns under the RFA. Accordingly, our use of the terms small entities and small businesses does not encompass small ILECs. Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will separately consider small ILECs within this analysis and use the term small ILECs to refer to any ILECs that  X 4arguably might be defined by the SBA as small business concerns.  $vY yO'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4813. Since the time of the Commission's 1996 decision, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 1614445 (paras. 132731) (1996), the Commission has consistently addressed in its regulatory flexibility analyses the impact of its rules on such ILECs.  X 4 H s Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing  Xy4telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year.?y vY yO6'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,  {O'Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size1-123 (1995) (1992 Census).? This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of these 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small  X4entities or small ILECs because they are not independently owned and operated.}f vY {O'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# See generally 15 U.S.C.  632(a)(1).} For example, a reseller that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It is reasonable to conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small ILECs that may be affected by the proposed rules.  X|4s Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telephone communications companies except radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at"N1 +&(&(qq"  X4least one year at the end of 1992.|k} {Oy'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 1992 Census, at Firm Size1-123.| According to the SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than  X41,500 persons.xZk} yO'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4813. x All but 26 of the 2,321 nonradiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or small ILECs. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 2,295 small telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies are small entities or small ILECs that may be  X 4affected by the proposed rules.  X 4s Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small providers of local exchange service. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone  X4(wireless) companies.Yk} {O+'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Id.Y According to the most recent telecommunications industry revenue  Xy4data, 1,410 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange  Xb4services.b|k} {O'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (Feb. 19, 1999). We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,410 providers of local exchange service are small entities or small ILECs that may be affected by the proposed rules.     X4s Pay Telephone Operators. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to pay telephone operators. The closest  X4applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than  X|4radiotelephone (wireless) companies.v|k} yO;"'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4813.v According to the most recent Trends in Telephone  Xg4Service data, 509 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of pay telephone  XR4services.Rk} {O%'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (Feb. 19, 1999). We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not"R20 0*&&qq" independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of pay telephone operators that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 509 small entity pay telephone operators that may be affected by the proposed rules.  Xv4s Resellers (including debit card providers). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to resellers. The closest applicable SBA definition for a reseller is a telephone communications company other than  X14radiotelephone (wireless) companies.v1/ yO 'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4813.v According to the most recent Trends in Telephone  X 4Service data, 358 reported that they were engaged in the resale of telephone service. X/ {O% 'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (Feb. 19, 1999). We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of resellers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 358 small entity resellers that may be affected by the proposed rules.  X4      X}' INTERNATIONAL SERVICES  XO4s The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to licensees in the international services. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is generally the  X!4definition under the SBA rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC). This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one with $11.0  X4million or less in annual receipts.w/ yO'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R.  120.121, SIC code 4899. w According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 848 communications services providers, NEC, in operation in 1992, and a total of 775 had  X4annual receipts of less than $9.999 million.tXz/ yO'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Economic Census Industry and  yO'Enterprise Receipts Size Report, Table 2D, SIC code 4899 (U.S. Bureau of the Census data under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration). t The Census report does not provide more precise data.  X' WIRELESS AND COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES  XR4s Cellular Licensees . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small  X$4entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500" 3 +''qq3"  X4persons.w/ yOy'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R. 121.201, SIC code 4812. w According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms from a  X4total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.X/ {O'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 1992 Census, Series UC92S1, at Table 5, SIC code 4812.  X4Therefore, even if all twelve of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. In addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several licenses. In  X4addition, according to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 732 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either cellular service or Personal Communications  Xa4Service (PCS) services, which are placed together in the data.a/ {O 'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (Feb. 19, 1999). We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 732 small cellular service carriers that may be affected by the proposed rules.  X 4s 220 MHz Radio Service Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both PhaseI and PhaseII licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a  Xd4definition of small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHZ Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, we apply the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone Communications companies. This definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more  X4than 1,500 persons.x |/ yO5'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4812. x According to the Bureau of the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms  X4out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.j!  / yO'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,  yOv'Communications, and Utilities, UC92-S-1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms; 1992, SIC code 4812 (issued May 1995). j Therefore, if this general ratio continues in 1999 in the context of PhaseI 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's definition.  X4s 220 MHz Radio Service PhaseII Licensees. The PhaseII 220 MHz service is a new  X~4service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, we  Xi4adopted criteria for defining small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment"R4 ! +''qq"  X4payments."/ yOy'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules To Provide for the Use of the 220222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio Service, PR Docket No. 89552; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No. 93252; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93253, Third Report and  {O'Order; Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 1106870 (paras. 29195) (1997) (220 MHz  {Oc'Third Report and Order). We have defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding  X4three years. Additionally, a very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3  X4million for the preceding three years.r#D/ {O 'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Id. at 11068-69 (para. 291).r The SBA has approved these definitions.$/ {O+ 'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# See Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to D. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6, 1998). An auction of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22,  Xv41998.%v0 / {OW'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# See generally Public Notice, 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Report No. WT 98-36 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. Oct. 23, 1998). Nine hundred and eight (908) licenses were auctioned in 3   different-sized geographic  X_4areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Companies claiming small business status won: one of the Nationwide licenses, 67% of the Regional licenses, and 54% of the EA licenses. As of January 22, 1999, the Commission announced  X 4that it was prepared to grant 654 of the Phase II licenses won at auction.& / yO>'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Public Notice, FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made, Report No. AUC18H, DA No. 99229 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. Jan. 22, 1999). A reauction of the remaining, unsold licenses is likely to take place during calendar year 1999.  X 4s Private and Common Carrier Paging. The Commission has proposed a twotier definition of small businesses in the context of auctioning licenses in the Common Carrier Paging and exclusive Private Carrier Paging services. Under the proposal, a small business will be defined as either (1) an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling  Xb4principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $3 million, or (2) an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of not more than $15 million. Because the SBA has not yet approved this definition for paging services, we will utilize the SBA's  X4definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than  X41,500 persons.v'/ yO%'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4812.v At present, there are approximately 24,000 Private Paging licenses and  X474,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone"5r' +''qq"  X4Service data, 137 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or  X4 other mobile services, which are placed together in the data.(/ {Od'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (Feb. 19, 1999). We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of paging carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 137 small paging carriers that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. We estimate that the majority of private and common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA  XJ4definition.  X 4s Mobile Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to mobile service carriers, such as paging companies. As noted above in the section concerning paging service carriers, the closest  X 4applicable definition under the SBA rules is that for radiotelephone (wireless) companies,v) Z/ yO'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4812.v  X 4and the most recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data shows that 23 carriers reported  X 4that they were engaged in the provision of SMR dispatching and other mobile services.* / {OF'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (Feb. 19, 1999).   Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 23 small mobile service carriers that may be affected by the proposed rules.  Xf4  XO4s Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS). The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined small entityfor Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar  X4years.+$|/ {O 'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 9659; Amendment of the Commission's Cellular/PCS CrossOwnership Rule, GN Docket 90314, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 785052 (paras.  {Oz'5760) (1996); see also Section 24.720(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 24.720(b). For Block F, an additional classification for very small business was added and is defined as an entity that, together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more  X4than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.w,h / {O!'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# See Id. at 7852 (para. 60).w These regulations defining small  X4entity in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA.+- / {OY$'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# See, e.g., Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PPDocket  yO#%'No.93253, Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 558184 (paras. 11420) (1994).+ No small businesses within the SBAapproved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A"6T - +''qqS"  X4and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the  X41,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F..k} {OK'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No. 71744 (released Jan. 14, 1997). Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 small entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.  X_4s Narrowband PCS. The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional licenses for narrowband PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30 regional licensees for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have sufficient information to determine whether any of these licensees are small businesses within the SBAapproved definition for radiotelephone companies. At present, there have been no auctions held for the major trading area (MTA) and basic trading area (BTA) narrowband PCS licenses. The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licenses and 2,958 BTA licenses will be awarded by auction. Such auctions have not yet been scheduled, however. Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have no more than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number of prospective  X4MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.  XK4s Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small  X44entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service./4Zk} yO?'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# The service is defined in Section 22.99 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.99. A significant subset of the Rural  X4Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS).0k} yO'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# BETRS is defined in Sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.757 and 22.759. We will  X4use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no  X4more than 1,500 persons.x1Bk} yO'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4812. x There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities  X4under the SBA's definition.     X4s AirGround Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of  X~4small entity specific to the AirGround Radiotelephone Service.2~k} yO#'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# The service is defined in Section 22.99 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.99. Accordingly, we will use  Xg4the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no"g7b 20*&&qq"  X4more than 1,500 persons.v3k} yOy'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4812.v There are approximately 100 licensees in the AirGround Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA definition.   X4s Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR). The Commission awards bidding credits in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses to firms that had revenues of no  Xv4more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years.l4vXk} yO 'ԍ#]\  PCɒP# 47 C.F.R. 90.814(b)(1). l In the context of 900 MHz SMR, this regulation defining small entity has been approved by the SBA; approval concerning 800 MHz SMR is being sought. sThe proposed rules in the NPRM apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that hold CMRS licenses. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service as CMRS operators, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. We assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the remaining existing SMR authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.  X4     Xy4s Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several UHF TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering the  XK4Gulf of Mexico.5Kk} {O'ԍ #]\  PCɒP#This service is governed by subpart I of part 22 of the Commission's Rules. See 47 C.F.R.  22.1001-22.1037. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. We are unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's definition for radiotelephone communications.  X' D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and  X'Other Compliance Requirements sCMRS carriers interested in offering their subscribers CPP would be required to provide a notification to those placing calls to the CPP subscriber that include the following elements: (1) Notice that the calling party is making a call to a wireless phone subscriber that has chosen the CPP option, and that the calling party therefore will be responsible for payment of airtime charges; (2) Identification of the CMRS provider; (3) The per minute rate, or other rates, that the caller will be charged by the CMRS provider; and (4) An opportunity to terminate the call prior to incurring any charges. In addition, LECs may be required to provide billing name and address information to CMRS carriers for parties who call CPP subscribers. Comments are also requested on the possible need for billing and collection"8B50*&&qq" services to be provided for CPP by LECs. We request comment on how these requirements can be modified to reduce the burden on small entities and still meet the objectives of the proceeding.  X' E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,  X'and Significant Alternatives Considered sWe have minimized burdens to the maximum extent possible. CPP is an optional CMRS offering that carriers may provide to their wireless subscribers, at the sole discretion of the carrier. As to the provision of caller billing name and address information, or billing and collection services, it is anticipated that any such services would be provided to CMRS carriers at negotiated rates that would enable LECs to recover all associated costs. We seek comment on significant alternatives that commenters believe we should adopt.  X ' F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules sNone.