WPC 2a BKf Z CG Times3|w4Xw PE37XP",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) in Room 650-1HPLA4MPC.PRSXw PE37\N@XP2   f 4 3|wCourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCG TimesCG Times ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicCG Times Bold",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2 Z&Kn+HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) in Room 650-1HPLA4MPC.PRSXx6X@Q\N@X@X01Í ÍX0Í Í"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdBibliogrphyn6oNBibliography!8=("(F H*"F7) F\E 2cTech Initn6oNInitialize Technical StyleF H*"F7) F\E 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1Technical+"X7) Technical Document StyleG!8=("(F H*"F4!     a2Technical+"X7) Technical Document StyleG!8=("(F H*"F*    a3Technical+"X7) Technical Document StyleG!8=("(F H*"F'     2!Z  d!a4Technical+"X7) Technical Document StyleG!8=("(F H*"F&     a5Technical+"X7) Technical Document StyleG!8=("(F H*"F&   . a6Technical+"X7) Technical Document StyleG!8=("(F H*"F&  . a7Technical+"X7) Technical Document StyleG!8=("(F H*"F &  . 2$ " " # R$a8Technical+"X7) Technical Document StyleG!8=("(F H*"F &  . Doc InitFn6oNInitialize Document StyleF H*"F7) F\E     I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲa1DocumentE+"X7) Document Style G!8=("(F #H*"F F *  ׃  a2DocumentE+"X7) Document Style G!8=("(F #H*"F *    2&%q%e&e&a3DocumentE+"X7) Document Style G!8=("(F #H*"F0     a4DocumentE+"X7) Document Style G!8=("(F #H*"F . a5DocumentE+"X7) Document Style G!8=("(F #H*"F   a6DocumentE+"X7) Document Style G!8=("(F #H*"F !" 2,p'p'@'e9,a7DocumentE+"X7) Document Style G!8=("(F #H*"F#$` ` ` a8DocumentE+"X7) Document Style G!8=("(F #H*"F%&` ` ` PleadingF$n6oNHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper*"F7) F\E'(   ,#Xx6X@QX@# X  y*dddyy*dddy HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4 HH5 HH6 HH7 HH8 HH9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Heading 2(n6oNUnderlined Heading Flush Left(H*"F7) F\E)* 2.p,s@--E.Heading 1)n6oNCentered Heading("(F )H*"F7) F\E+,* à  Bullet Listn6oNIndented Bullet List(F *H*"F7) F\E-.` ` ` a1Right Par+"X7) Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"(F IH*"F8/0@   a2Right Par+"X7) Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"(F IH*"FA12@` `  ` ` ` 21//c01a3Right Par+"X7) Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"(F IH*"FJ34` ` @  ` `  a4Right Par+"X7) Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"(F IH*"FS56` `  @  a5Right Par+"X7) Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"(F IH*"F\78` `  @hh# hhh a6Right Par+"X7) Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"(F IH*"Fe9:` `  hh#@( hh# 2NG 220`3KEa7Right Par+"X7) Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"(F IH*"Fn;<` `  hh#(@- ( a8Right Par+"X7) Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"(F IH*"Fw=>` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Xx6X@QX@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)XXx6X@QX@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)XXP\  PQXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)XXP\  PQXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)XXP\  PQXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)XXP\  PQXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)XXP\  PQXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)XXP\  PQXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)XXP\  PQXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)XXx6X@ QX@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)XXP\  P QXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)XXP\  P QXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)XXSi  P QXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  P QXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)XXSi  PQXPi `Garmond (W1)X"i~'^FR`xxʻRRRx>R>CxxxxxxxxxxCCjݭR[ӭ⭭RCRnxRjxjxjRxxCCxCxxxxR[Cxxxxjs0sR>nRRR>RRRRRRRRxCjjjjjӜjjjjjRCRCRCRCxxxxxxxxxxjxvxxxxjjjjjjjjjjxxxxxRCRxRRRxxC`RRCxxxxxӭRRR[[[eCnxxxxxx⭭jjjxRx[Rx>xxP+PWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVnxRjxxxxxCMxHMxHRRjjxRRxx듶VVȆRjxH"x𐋂x됐x2PKGKIKLKaN"i~'^FRxxRRRx>R>CxxxxxxxxxxRRx⭞[x⭻𭭞RCRxRxjjRxCRCʆxj[Rxxxj`5`}R>}RRR>RRRRRRxRCxxxxxjjjjjYCYCYCYCxxxxxxxxxxxxxjj}jjjjjxxx}x[C[[R[†}}ClR`Cxxjjj[[[}zR}jjjR[Rx>xxPAPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVxRxxxxxxHRxHRxHRRxxxRRxxVVȆRxxH"x𐎂x됐x"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxfx6X@`7X@7jC:, Xj\  P6G;XPAPF,Y!\  P6G;PAPF,4  pG;7nC:,Xn4  pG;X\5hC:,-Xh*f9 xr G;XX W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hP<R&HHH,D,H6X@`7h@ 8wC;,D=Xw PE37XP !V"G($,DhG PE37hP"6uC;,M^Xu&_ x7XX6jC:,]LXj9 xOG;XD7zC;,ybXz_ pi7X2 Kq f ItF["i~'^:LpddDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppdLd||p|||D8DpdDddXdXDdp88d8pdddLL8pXdXLD,DpD4ppDDD4DDDDDDdDd8dddddXXXXXL8L8L8L8pddddpppp|Xdddd|Xd|ddddXXpXXXXXdddpdppL8LdLDLdpppd|8|h|D|L|8pppddLLLpLpLpLpp|l|8|ppppppp|p|L|L|Ld|DppL|D|d4ddC8CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHddLdddddd4where mutually exclusive applications for initial licensing are received for subscriberbased   services for compensation. Under this authority, the Commission, to date, has conducted three"'0*0*0*."  X-  iauctions for Personal Communications Service (PCS) licenses.8" Xy<  "Ѝ#XP\  PQ XP# The three PCS auction conducted thus far are: (1) the Nationwide Narrowband PCS   Mauction, held from July 25 through July 29, 1994; (2) the Regional PCS Narrowband auction,   jheld October 26 through November 8, 1994; and (3) the broadband PCS A and B block auction,   yheld December 5, 1994, through March 13, 1995. All three of these auctions were conducted as   simultaneous multiple round auctions. In a simultaneous multiple round auction, auction   [participants submit bids on specific licenses in each round of the auction. The auction closes  X-  when there are no new bids during a bidding round on any of the offered licenses. See Second  X-  kReport and Order, PP Docket No. 93253, 9 FCC Rcd 2348 (1994), 59 Fed. Reg. 22,980 (1994). 8 In previous Commission auctions,   remote electronic bidding was provided by Business Information Network (BIN). Bidders  X-  electing to bid electronically from remote locations (i.e., not at the FCC auction site) paid BIN   La fee for the remote bidding software and an online computer access charge. The fee covered BIN's costs to develop and provide remote bidding access.  X- 3. Due to the experience gained from these three auctions, the Commission has developed   its own remote electronic access system that utilizes Wide Area Network or WAN technology.   This system (FCC WAN) would allow bidders and other interested parties to file applications   electronically, bid electronically, access auction round results, and query FCC licensing databases   from their personal computers from remote locations. The Commission has also developed a   number of proprietary software applications to support the remote electronic access system.   yBidders and other interested parties would utilize a 900 number telephone service to access the   FCC WAN system. The Commission has incurred significant costs in developing this remote   ielectronic access system. Such costs include: infrastructure design and implementation; software development and testing; and other administrative/personnel costs.  X -  X - 4. On May 16, 1995, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) P Y<Ѝ#Xw PE37=XP# WT Docket No. 9569, 10 FCC Rcd 7066 (1995), 60 Fed. Reg. 26,860 (1995). seeking   comment on a proposed schedule of fees to be assessed in future auctions for access to certain   online computer services, and for obtaining proprietary bidding software as well as multiple  X-  >bidder information packages. In order to recoup our costs, we proposed to charge a fee to   bidders and other interested parties for access to the FCC WAN system and for obtaining the   jproprietary bidding software needed to make use of the system's electronic bidding functions.  X@-  We also proposed recouping some of the printing and production costs associated with providing   bidder information packages to prospective auction participants. Specifically, we indicated that  X-  parties would continue to receive one complimentary bidder information package, but suggested charging a fee for additional packages that are requested.  X- 5. We also observed that under government regulations any funds received from the sale  X-  ?of materials, software, or services must go directly to the U.S. Treasury. See 31 U.S.C.    =3302(b); 69 Comp. Gen. 260, 262 (1990). We noted that the Independent Offices Appropriation   LAct of 1952, as amended (IOAA), 31 U.S.C.  9701, permits the government to impose fees and   <charges for services and things of value. The IOAA authorizes agencies to prescribe regulations   -establishing charges for products and services provided by an agency. The charges must be fair   and must be based on the costs to the government, the value of the service or product to the  X@-  yrecipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant facts. See 31 U.S.C.  9701(b).   .In addition, we indicated that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued policy" 0*(("  X-  zguidelines on use of fees in Circular A25 (OMB Circular)," Xy<  /"Ѝ#XP\  PQ XP# See FPC v. New England Power Co., 415 U.S. 345, 34951 (1974) (citing the OMB Circular). which was recently revised. We   noted that the revised OMB Circular, encourages the assessment of fees for government-provided   products and services, and provides that agencies must establish fees based on either a "full cost" or "market price" analysis.  X- "6. More specifically, we proposed in the Notice to calculate our fees on the basis of  X-  ="market price"X0Í ÍX0Í Í@nm" XA <  "#Xx6X@ Q>fX@#Ѝ#XP\  P Q XP# "Market price" means the price for a good, resource, or service that is based on   competition in open markets, and creates neither a shortage nor a surplus of the good, resource,  X -or service. See OMB Circular at 58 Fed. Reg. 38,145. rather than utilizing a "full cost" pricing analysis.Ynm" XI -  "Ѝ#XP\  P Q XP# "Full cost" includes all direct and indirect costs to any part of the Federal Government of  X -providing a good, resource, or service. See OMB Circular at 58 Fed. Reg. 38,145. Y In particular, we proposed   yto utilize prevailing price methodology to determine the fees for the FCC WAN system use, the  X-  proprietary bidding software, and the additional bidder information packages. We proposed the   following fees: (1) $4.00 per minute for access via a 900 number to the FCC WAN system; (2)   M$200.00 for each remote bidding software package; and (3) $16.00 for each additional bidder   information package (including postage) requested beyond the one complimentary copy that is   made available. We sought comments on these charges, and on comparable market prices for similar products and services that are offered to the public.   X@ - 7. BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth), Rural Telecommunications Coalition (RTC) and   1AirTouch Paging (AirTouch) filed formal comments and National Paging & Personal   Communications Association (NPPCA) and KennedyWilson International (KWI) filed informal  X -comments by letter in response to the Notice.  X-]; III. Discussion ă   X- !8. BellSouth questions whether the Commission can assess fees for its auctionrelated   yservices under IOAA, when Section 309(j)(8)(B) of the Communications Act already authorizes   the Commission to recover the cost of conducting auctions from auction revenues. We conclude   =that assessing fees for use of the Commission's FCC WAN system as described above is fully   consistent with our competitive bidding obligations under the Communications Act and with other  X@-  laws and regulations that govern fees. See 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(8)(B); 31 U.S.C.  9701(a).   Assessing a fee to bidders using certain online computer services and bidding software is a   reasonable and efficient means of recovering the costs associated with developing, maintaining,   enhancing, and upgrading this important system and its companion software. Indeed, our   proposal supports a congressional goal set forth in the IOAA, which is that "each service or thing   .of value provided by an agency . . . to a person . . . be selfsustaining to the extent possible."  X-  See 31 U.S.C.  9701(a). Moreover, contrary to BellSouth's suggestion, nothing in Section   >309(j)(8)(B) prohibits the Commission from imposing fees on auction participants under the IOAA.  X- A. OnLine Computer Access Charges.  X@- "9. Comments. BellSouth, RTC, and AirTouch oppose the Commission's proposal to   establish online access charges by comparing the FCC WAN system with the costs associated   with access to Westlaw and LexisNexis services, claiming the comparison is invalid. RTC   =contends that the fee for 900 service should be based upon "full cost" and not "market price." "`0*((&%"   In addition, BellSouth and NPPCA assert that there is no alternative to remote electronic bidding   procedures. Additionally, NPPCA claims there is already a fee to file applications electronically.  X@-  10. Decision. After considering the record, we will charge $2.30 per minute for access   to the FCC WAN system for purposes of bidding electronically, reviewing other applications  X-  .(e.g., FCC Form 175 or FCC Form 600 applications), and obtaining available licensing database   kinformation. We emphasize, however, that we will not charge a user a fee for accessing this   system for the purpose of filing a short or longform application electronically. There will be   [a clear delineation between services for which online access fees will be charged and services   for which no online access fees will be charged. Users who download from the FCC's electronic   .bulletin board or from the Internet software specific to a service for which we intend to charge   online access fees will receive clear notification that execution of this software will result in on  jline access fees. In addition, when a caller executes software specific to a service for which we   zintend to charge online access fees, there will be a grace period, free of charge to the caller.   During the grace period, the caller will be advised of the associated pricing, basic program   content, sponsor information, and provided the option to disconnect without being charged.   OCharges to the caller will not begin until the grace period has ended. Instructions on   downloading and executing software specific to a particular service will be made available by Public Notice prior to the availability of that service.  X-  11. In arriving at this $2.30 fee, we considered that the FCC WAN system will provide  X-  services that are similar to both the electronic bidding capabilities previously offered by BIN and  X-  Zto database services provided by Westlaw or LexisNexis. For previous auctions, the cost for on  line electronic bidding through BIN was $23.00 per hour, which equals $.38 per minute  X-  (rounded). The average cost associated with access to online database services such as Westlaw or LexisNexis is $4.23 per minute.  "12. While our new remote electronic bidding system is similar to BIN, which charged   $23.00 per hour, FCC WAN system access to the Commission's licensing databases is more like   the services provided by Westlaw or LexisNexis. Both Westlaw and LexisNexis provide online   >database access for research purposes to legal and other research professionals. We have   therefore averaged the costs of these two types of services to arrive at a fee of $2.30 per minute   for online access to the FCC WAN system. BellSouth and AirTouch argue that the Commission   Mshould use other information service providers such as CompuServe, Prodigy, Internet and   LAmerica Online as comparisons in determining a price per minute for access to the FCC WAN   system. According to the commenters, these particular services range in price from $10.00 to   M$30.00 per month for limited access and $3.00 to $10.00 per hour for special services. These   >providers market their products and services to the general public, however, and their fees   obviously reflect the high volume of users that are serviced by them. By comparison, the   kCommission's auction and licensing databases are of interest to a relatively small number of   potential users. Westlaw or LexisNexis, however, do service a small number of users with   information that is akin to the licensing database information we plan to offer. Consequently, their pricing provides a more relevant comparison for establishing our fees here.  m13. We note that OMB guidelines provide that the price of the governmentprovided   service must be adjusted to reflect the "level of service and quality of the good or service" when   compared to a similar commercial service. OMB Circular at 58 Fed. Reg. 38,145. In this regard,   we believe it is reasonable to charge a higher perminute fee for our remote bidding system than   [was charged by BIN because of the enhanced bidding functionality of the FCC WAN system.   /Specifically, electronic bidding via the FCC WAN system is expected to be faster and more"$0*((+"  X-  efficientnm Yy-  #Xw PE37=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# Our FCC WAN system is demonstrably faster than the BIN system used in previous   ,auctions, according to our test results. For example, using BIN, the average amount of online   time for the Regional Narrowband auction was 16 minutes, 37 seconds per bidding round   -whereas the average amount of time using the new system in a mock Regional Narrowband  Yy-auction was 12 minutes, 26 seconds per bidding round (i.e., using a comparison of 30 licenses). than BIN. Bidders will have the option of uploading bids from a file that they have   created offline, which will reduce the time required to submit and verify bid submissions. Also,   .bidders will be able to develop round results files based on their individual needs. In addition   to remote bidding and round results, the system also will provide for access to the Commission's  X-  licensing databases (i.e., to locate and review other applications). Moreover, the FCC WAN  X-  ysystem permits applications to be filed electronically (e.g., the FCC Form 175 and the FCC Form 600).   14. In addition, we reject RTC's argument that charging for 900 number service should   be based on "full cost" instead of "market price." First, OMB has given us the discretion to   choose either methodology. Second, based on our examination of the two methodologies, we   conclude that application of a "market price" approach is more practical and efficient for our  X -  purposes here. In this regard, we note that the Commission will incur costs of approximately   $700,000 for one year of service for the expanded telephone cabling required to implement the  X -  Commission's online bidding system.@ Pnm" Y-  j"Ѝ#XSi  PQ=XP# The Notice pointed out that the General Services Administration ("GSA") was in the   process of making arrangements to add 900 service to the Federal Telecommunications System  Y-  ("FTS") 2000 contract, which is the governmentwide telephone system. The Notice should have   : additionally mentioned that pointtopoint telephone cabling upgrades were also added to the FTS  Y-  contract. Since release of the Notice, installation of the expanded telephone cabling has been  YA-  ordered but addition of the 900 service is pending and will not be added until this Report and  Y-Order has been adopted and released.  This figure alone, however, does not reflect all of the   cost components to be included within OMB's definition of "full cost." Attempting to apportion   "full cost" to individual auctions, which will each vary in duration, number of bidders and   number of licenses, is administratively unworkable. Thus, we conclude that the "full cost"  Y -  methodology is inappropriate in this context. This #XSi  PQ=XP#analysis answers BellSouth's concerns that   we have not provided any estimate of Commission costs. We reiterate that market price remains   Lthe only viable methodology in establishing a fee for 900 service. Likewise, AirTouch's   Yassertion that a $.15 to $.20 per minute charge for 900 service would recoup the Commission's costs is an attempt at the "full cost" recovery methodology, which we have declined to use.  15. Finally, we are not persuaded by BellSouth's or NPPCA's argument that there is no   ,alternative to remote electronic bidding procedures and therefore no fee should be charged for   Jthis service. We note that bidders may continue to place bids through a 800 telephone number  Y@-  hservice free of charge.|@@X ) XI!-  Ѝ As in previous auctions, bidders still will have the option of placing their bids from remote   locations via an 800 telephone number service at no charge. Round results information also will be available to bidders over the Internet and on an FCC electronic bulletin board at no charge.| In addition, contrary to NPPCA's belief, we have not established a fee  Y-  for electronic filing of the FCC Form 175. In order to encourage auction participants to file   their shortform applications electronically, as noted above, we do not plan to charge for this particular use.   X- B. Auction Bidding Software.  Y- 16. Comments. BellSouth, RTC, and Airtouch generally argue that there are a number"`0*(("   Jof comparable software packages on the market that are substantially cheaper than the $200.00   Zfee proposed by the Commission for its bidding software package. They provided names of   Lvarious computer companies, computer programs and protocols, as well as various dollar amounts in support of their arguments.  Y- 17. Decision. After reviewing the comments and alternative prices suggested, we have   decided to assess a fee of $175.00 for the remote bidding software package made available to   each user on the FCC WAN system. We will not, however, charge for software that is   ;necessary for users to file applications electronically on the FCC WAN system. Also, we will   ,not charge for software that is needed for users to access the Commission's licensing databases  Y-  (although as discussed supra, FCC WAN users will be charged $2.30 per minute for actually   accessing the Commission's licensing database). We base our $175.00 price on the BIN   bidding software which was made available to bidders in previous Commission auctions for a   <$200.00 charge. We will reduce this fee by $25.00, however, because our system does not   include a communications component that was provided as part of the BIN software package.   Specifically, the $25.00 reduction represents the cost of certain technical protocols that are   necessary for remote electronic bidders and other interested parties to access the Commission's  Y -remote electronic system.I @ ) Y9-  Ѝ#Xw PE37=XP# Such technical protocols are available "off the shelf" and can be purchased for   approximately $25.00. Examples of these protocols are Trumpet, NetManage Chameleon and Wollongong Pathway Access. I   |18. AirTouch argues that computer software programs such as Procomm, Telix,   Crosstalk and SLIP PPP are appropriate comparisons to the FCC remote bidding software and   should be used in determining the market price of our bidding software. For two reasons, we   wdo not believe these software packages are "price comparable" to the bidding software we plan   to offer. First, the programs cited by Airtouch are produced for large numbers of users whereas   ,our software is targeted to a small group of users. Second, these programs are more limited in   scope and function than the FCC's software. Specifically, the cited programs are   xcommunications and technical protocols only whereas the FCC's software package is a more   sophisticated logicbased program that will enable users to submit and withdraw bids electronically.  X- C. Bidder's Information Package.  Y- 19. Comments. None of the commenting parties challenge the methodology used to   calculate the $16.00 cost for each additional bidder information package. AirTouch nevertheless   opposes a charge for additional bidder information packages, and claims it will be difficult to   enforce the policy. KWI, on the other hand, states the Commission should charge $50.00 to   $100.00 for bidder information packages to ensure they are distributed to persons with a serious interest in the auction process.  Y@- 20. Decision. We conclude that it is both fair and reasonable to provide one   complimentary bidder information package to each person or entity, and to charge $16.00 for   each additional package (including postage) requested by the same person or entity. The $16.00   charge is based on the average direct costs incurred by the Commission to duplicate, bind and mail such packages.  j21. We observe that nothing prevents a recipient of a complimentary bidder information   package from making additional copies at his or her own expense. We are unpersuaded that   + charging for additional bidder information packages violates the public interest or will be unduly   burdensome to enforce, as Airtouch suggests. We also reject KWI's suggestion that we charge"$ 0*((-"   $50.00 to $100.00 for bidder information packages since we think such charges would not be consistent with OMB guidelines.   X@- D. Payment of Fees Methodology.  Y-  Y- 22. Comments. None of the commenting parties object to the proposed inclusion of the   FCC WAN online access charges on the user's long distance telephone bill. Moreover, none   of the commenters express any opposition to having the fees for the bidding software and the   bidder information packages collected by credit card or cashier checks. KWI suggests expanding the payment method to include personal and corporate checks.  Y@- 23. Decision. Charges for online access to the FCC WAN system will be included in   ,the form of 900 number service charges on each user's long distance telephone bill. Each user    will pay its long distance telephone company directly for these charges. As for bidding software   and additional bidder information packages, we will permit payment by credit card and cashier's   check. Further, we agree that personal or corporate checks should be permitted and will permit   payment in this manner as long as such checks sufficiently identify the payor. All checks should  Y -  ibe made payable to the "Federal Communications Commission" or "FCC." The Commission   ycontracts with an auctioneer for each auction, and it is the auction contractor that will be   I responsible for administering payments of the bidding software and additional bidder information   Zpackages. Bidders may obtain the FCC's bidding software and bidder information packages   from the FCC's auction contractor. Specific instructions for purchasing the software and bidder information packages will be made available by Public Notice prior to the start of each auction.  Y-` `  IV. Procedural Matters ă   24. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1165, 5  Y@-  U.S.C.  601, et seq. (1981), the Commission attached an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  Y-  (IRFA) as Appendix A to the Notice in WT Docket No. 9569. Written comments on the IRFA were requested. The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is as follows:  Y@- A. Need and Purpose of the Action. This rulemaking proceeding is taken to implement   Jthe Commission's establishment and collection of fees for the Commission's proprietary remote   Jsoftware packages, online communications service charges, and bidder's information packages   win connection with auctionable services. The rules specifically set forth the amounts that are to   be paid in connection with bidding for auctionable services. The objective of this proceeding   ;is to collect the necessary amounts through the fees being adopted, with the funds going to the U.S. Treasury.  Y@- B. Issues Raised in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. There were no comments submitted in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  Y- C. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected. All significant alternatives have been addressed in this Report and Order.  Y!- D. Description, Potential Impact, and Number of Small Entities Involved. Because the   =Commission will provide proprietary remote software packages, online communications   services, and bidder's information packages directly, the fees assessed and collected will recover   the Government's costs. While the number of small entities impacted by these fees is unknown,   kany such impact is likely to be insubstantial. Moreover, the Commission has provided alternative remote access options free of charge.  25. For further information on the assessment and collection of the charges established   by the rules adopted herein, contact Bert Weintraub, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,"' 0*((1" Auctions Division, at (202) 4181316. " 0*(("   Y-m) V. Ordering Clause ă  Y@- 26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i) and   <(j), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i)   iand (j), 303(r), and 309(j), as well as the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952, as  Y-  amended, 31 U.S.C.  9701, Part 1 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 1, IS  Y@-  AMENDED to assess and collect fees in connection with auctionable services as set forth in the   YAppendix, effective upon publication in the federal register. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  553(d)(3),  Y-  we conclude that "good cause" exists to have the rule amendments set forth in this Report and  Y-  JOrder take effect immediately upon publication in the federal register. The Commission's next   auction is presently scheduled to commence on August 29, 1995, and shortform applications  Y -  for that auction are due on July 28, 1995. ) Yy -ԍ#Xw PE37=XP#See Public Notice, DA 951420, released June 23, 1995. In order to provide for a smooth transition to the  Y -  new computer system and software discussed in this Report and Order, it is necessary to institute our fee schedule prior to the start of this upcoming auction.   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary"@ P 0*(("  Y-LL Appendix ă Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  Y- Part 1 Practice and Procedure XX` ` (#` 1. The authority citation continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303, and 309(j) unless otherwise noted. 2. Sections 1.1181 and 1.1182 are added to Subpart G to read as follows:  X -  1.1181 Authority to prescribe and collect fees for competitive biddingrelated services  X -and products.    Authority to prescribe, impose, and collect fees for expenses incurred by the government is   governed by the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952, as amended, 31 U.S.C.  9701,   which authorizes agencies to prescribe regulations that establish charges for the provision of   \government services and products. Under this authority, the Federal Communications   Commission may prescribe and collect fees for competitive biddingrelated services and products as specified in Section 1.1182 of this subpart.  X-    1.1182 Schedule of fees for products and services provided by the Commission in connection with competitive bidding procedures.  Y- T ddx !ddx ( l T  H  w }Product or Servicew>UFee AmountwYPayment ProcedureH   wg  Online remote access (900 Number Telephone Service)g $2.30 per minuteg Charges included on customer's long distance telephone bill x g8  Remote Bidding SoftwareHh $175.00 per packageHh Payment to auction contractor by credit card or check (Public Notice will specify exact payment procedures.)xH 87  Bidder Information Packagew First package free; $16.00 per additional package (including postage) to same person or entity 7 Payment to auction contractor by credit card or check (Public Notice will specify exact payment procedures.)H7