Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge for Special Access Lines; Reallocation of General Support Facility Costs

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 69

[CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, 96-263; FCC 97-158]

Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge for Special Access

Lines; Reallocation of General Support Facility Costs

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission is concerned that its most recent changes to

access charges assessed on multi-line business lines may encourage some

multi-line businesses that are currently using switched access to

purchase instead special access lines, which would negatively affect

the Commission's transition from the per-minute carrier common line

(CCL) charge to the flat presubscribed interexchange carrier charge

(PICC) as set out in the Access Charge Reform First Report and Order.

The Commission tentatively concludes, therefore, that it should permit

price cap LECs to assess a PICC on special access lines to recover

revenues for the common line basket. The Commission seeks comments on

this proposal and the related issue of how special access connections

should be counted for purposes of assessing a ``per line'' PICC. This

rule will help ensure the transition from the per minute CCL charge to

the flat PICC. In the second part of this FNPRM, the Commission also

addresses the allocation of general support facility costs. Under the

current allocation of general support facility costs, incumbent LECs

recover through interstate access charges costs associated with the

LECs' nonregulated billing and collection functions. In the FNPRM, the

Commission tentatively concludes that price cap incumbent LECs' general

purpose computer costs attributable to billing and collection should

not be recovered through regulated access charges. The Commission seeks

comment on two proposed options for reassigning these costs to the

billing and collection category. This rule is intended to correct the

misallocation of GSF costs.

DATES: Comments for the notice of proposed rulemaking, including

comments on the information collection requirements are due on or

before June 26, 1997. Replies are due on or before July 11, 1996,

except that reply comments on the information collection requirements

are due on or before July 28, 1997. Written comments must be submitted

to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or

modified information collections on or before August 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20554. Parties should also file two copies of any pleading with

the Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Room 518, 1919

M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments on the information

collections also should be filed with the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission. Parties commenting on the information

collections should also file a copy of any filing with Judy Boley,

Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554 and with Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Lerner, Attorney, Common

Carrier Bureau, Competitive Pricing Division, (202) 418-1530. For

additional information concerning the information collections contained

in this Report and Order contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the

Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted May 7, 1997, and released

May 16, 1997. The full text of this Proposed Rulemaking is available

for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text also may be obtained through the World Wide Web, at

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common__Carrier/Orders/fcc.97158.wp, or may

be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M St., NW., Suite

140, Washington, DC 20037. This FNPRM contains proposed or modified

information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA). It has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other

Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed or modified

information collections contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This FNPRM contains either a proposed or modified information

collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork

burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information

collections contained in this FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments

are due at the same time as other comments on this FNPRM; OMB comments

are due 60 days from date of publication of this FNPRM in the Federal

Register. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection

of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions

of the Commission, including whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden

estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or other forms of information

technology.

OMB Approval Number: None.

Title: Access Charge Reform Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit..

Number of Respondents: 13.

Estimated Time Per Response: 720 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 9,360 hours.

Estimated costs per respondent: $22,200.

Total Annual Estimated Costs per respondent: $288,600.

Needs and Uses: Under this proposal, a price cap LEC would study

the uses of the general purpose computer assets recorded in Account

2124 to determine the percentage of investment in that account that is

used for billing collection activities. We propose that each price cap

LEC add to its cost allocation manual (CAM) a new section entitled

``Interstate Billing and Collection.'' That section would describe: (1)

The manner in which the price cap LEC provides interstate billing and

collection services, and (2) the study it uses to determine the portion

of Account 2124 investment that it attributes to the billing and

collection category. The special study would then be subject to the

same independent audit requirements as other regulated and nonregulated

cost allocations.

[[Page 31041]]

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Special Access Presuscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge

In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek

comment on our proposal to allow incumbent local exchange carriers to

impose a Presuscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge (PICC) on special

access lines.

1. Background

2. As discussed in the Access Charge Reform, First Report and

Order, CC Docket 96-262, FCC 97-158 (released May 16, 1997) (Access

Charge Reform Order), in most cases, the $3.50 suscriber line charge

(SLC) ceiling for primary residential and single-line business

customers does not allow recovery through the SLC of the average per-

line common line revenues permitted under our price cap rules.

Similarly, in certain service areas, the $6.00 SLC for multi-line

business lines is insufficient to recover the average per-line revenues

permitted by price cap regulation. To alleviate this shortfall, we are

instituting a number of changes, including raising the ceiling on the

SLC for multi-line business and second and additional residential

lines. Although this increase in the SLC will recover some of the

shortfall, other measures are needed to allow recovery of the common

line revenues permitted under our rules.

3. Therefore, we have permitted local exchange carriers (LECs) to

recover common line revenues not recovered from the SLC by assessing

flat, per-line charges on the end-user's presubscribed interexchange

carrier. Specifically, we are permitting LECs to assess a PICC on all

lines, subject to ceilings which will be increased each year. To the

extent that the revenues from SLCs and PICCs on primary residential

lines and single-line business lines are insufficient to recover the

full common line revenues permitted by our price cap rules for these

lines, or the multi-line SLCs are at their ceilings, incumbent LECs

shall recover the difference by assessing an additional PICC on non-

primary residential and multi-line business lines. To the extent that

these PICCs do not recover an incumbent LEC's remaining permitted CCL

revenues, incumbent LECs generally shall recover any such residual

common line revenues through per-minute carrier common line (CCL)

charges assessed on originating access minutes.

4. As a result of our new rules, certain multi-line businesses will

be paying higher SLCs than they do now. Similarly, as the PICCs are

phased in, interexchange carriers (IXCs) initially will be required to

pay higher PICCs for a multi-line business end user compared to the

PICC paid for a primary residential end user or a single-line business

end user.

5. In contrast, users of special access do not pay a SLC.

Furthermore, under special access, IXCs do not incur the same local

access charges that are incurred by end users using switched access. In

light of our most recent changes to charges incurred by multi-line

businesses, including the higher SLC and the new multi-line business

PICC, it may be cost effective for some multi-line businesses that are

currently using switched access to purchase instead special access

lines.

6. We are concerned that these facts could lead to the migration of

certain businesses from the public switched network to special access,

which would result in a decrease in projected revenue from multi-line

SLCs. As a result PICCs for all remaining switched access lines will

necessarily increase to make up for the loss of revenue.

2. Proposal

7. We tentatively conclude that we should permit price cap LECs to

assess a PICC on special access lines to recover revenues for the

common line basket. The special access PICC would be no higher than the

PICC that an incumbent LEC could charge for a multi-line business line.

Under our proposal, the special access PICC would not recover transport

interconnection charge (TIC) or marketing expense.

8. We acknowledge that our proposal is a departure from established

Commission practice that special access will not subsidize other

services. Although our proposal is a subsidy, it is temporary in nature

and will be phased out as the single-line PICC is phased in. We

tentatively conclude that our proposal is necessary for our transition

from the per-minute CCL charge to the flat PICC to work.

9. We invite parties to comment on this proposal. We also seek

comment on how special access connections should be counted for

purposes of assessing a ``per line'' PICC. Parties should also address

the extent to which our proposal affects large and small LECs

differently and how small business entities, including small incumbent

LECs and new entrants, will be affected.

10. Consistent with our approach to reform the interstate access

charge regime, however, we tentatively conclude that the scope of this

proceeding should be limited to incumbent price cap LECs. As discussed

in the Access Charge Reform Order, we have limited the scope of access

reform, with some limited exceptions, to price cap incumbent LECs.

These incumbent LECs are the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies

(Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, Pacific Telesis,

Southwestern Bell, U S West), Citizens, Frontier, GTE, Aliant (formerly

Lincoln), SNET, and United/Central. Similarly, we limit the scope of

this FNPRM. To the extent necessary, we will instead address the effect

of these issues on rate-of-return carriers in our separate access

reform proceeding for rate-of-return carriers in 1997. In that

proceeding, we will have the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive

review of the circumstances unique to these carriers. We seek comment

on this tentative conclusion regarding the scope of this proceeding. We

also invite parties to identify any changes that should be made to

other access elements as a result of this proposed change.

B. Reallocation of General Support Facility Costs

11. As discussed in Section IV. D of the Access Charge Reform

Order, the current allocation of General Support Facility (GSF) costs

enables incumbent LECs to recover through regulated interstate access

charges costs associated with the LECs' nonregulated billing and

collection functions. In this section, we seek comment on proposed

changes in the allocation of price cap LECs' interstate costs between

regulated interstate services and nonregulated billing and collection

activities.

1. Background

12. The costs that incumbent LECs recover through interstate access

charges are determined by a multi-step process. Incumbent LECs first

record their investment costs and booked expenses in the accounts

prescribed by the Commission's Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts

(USOA). They next divide the recorded investment and expenses between

regulated and nonregulated services pursuant to Part 64 of the

Commission's rules. Incumbent LECs then divide regulated expenses and

investment costs between the state and interstate jurisdictions

pursuant to the separations procedures prescribed in Part 36 of the

Commission's rules. Finally, in accordance with our Part 69 access

charge rules, the LEC apportions its regulated interstate costs among

the interstate access and interexchange service categories.

13. Because the Part 69 access charge rules are applied at the end

of this

[[Page 31042]]

multi-step process, they are written to accommodate the accounts

defined by the USOA and the cost categories prescribed by the

Separations Manual. In 1987, the Commission revised its access charge

rules in response to the Commission's comprehensive revision of both

the USOA and the Separations Manual. Amendment of Part 69 of the

Commission's Rules and Regulations, Access Charges, To Conform It With

Part 36, Jurisdictional Separations Procedures, CC Docket No. 87-113,

Report and Order, 52 FR 37368 (October 6, 1987), corrected 54 FR 8196

(February 27, 1989) (Part 69 Conformance Order). In its Part 69

Conformance Order, the Commission amended Part 69 to reapportion

regulated interstate costs, including General Support Facilities (GSF)

investment expenses, among the existing access elements.

14. As discussed in Section IV.D of the Access Charge Reform Order,

the GSF investment category in Part 36 includes assets that support

other operations, such as land, buildings, vehicles, as well as general

purpose computer investment accounted for in USOA Account 2124. Some

incumbent LECs use general purpose computer equipment, which is

included in the GSF investment category, to provide nonregulated

billing and collection services to IXCs. The costs of providing

interstate billing and collection service are not, however, treated as

nonregulated in the Part 64 cost allocation process. Instead,

nonregulated interstate billing and collection costs are identified

through the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation process. The

separations process allocates these costs to the various separations

categories based on the separations of the three largest categories of

expenses, i.e., plant specific expenses, plant non-specific expenses,

and customer operations expenses. These three largest categories, or

the ``Big Three Expenses,'' are the combined expense groups comprising:

(1) Plant Specific Operations Expense, Accounts 6110, 6120, 6210, 6220,

6230, 6310, and 6410; (2) Plant Nonspecific Operations Expenses,

Accounts 6510, 6530, and 6540; and (3) Customer Operations Expenses,

Accounts 6610 and 6620.

15. In its comments in response to the Access Charge Reform NPRM,

AT&T refers to the allocation of embedded GSF expenses, including

general purpose computer expenses, among access categories as a

misallocation resulting in an implicit cross-subsidy of incumbent LECs'

nonregulated billing and collection services. Access Charge Reform,

Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport

Rate Structure and Pricing, Usage of the Public Switched Network by

Information Service and Internet Access Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-

262, 94-1, 91-213, 96-263, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Third Report

and Order, and Notice of Inquiry, 62 FR 4670 (January 31, 1997). This

allocation, AT&T contends, results in the inappropriate support through

regulated access charges of LECs' billing and collection service, which

is a nonregulated, interstate service. AT&T estimates that $124 million

of expenses recovered in interstate access support the nonregulated

billing and collection category. Of the $124 million, AT&T states that

$60.1 million is included in interstate switched access, and $20.5

million is in interstate special access, with the remainder recovered

by the SLC.

2. Proposal

16. The failure of Part 69 to assign general purpose computer costs

to the billing and collection category can be traced to our decision in

the Part 69 Conformance Order to use an investment-based allocator to

apportion general support facilities (GSF) investment. As discussed in

Section IV.D of the Access Charge Reform Order, Sec. 69.307 of the

Commission's rules apportions GSF investment among the billing and

collection category, the interexchange category, and the access

elements based on the amount of Central Office Equipment (COE), Cable

and Wire Facilities (CWF), and Information Origination/Termination

Equipment (IO/T) investment allocated to each Part 69 category. This

rule appears on its face to provide for an allocation of GSF investment

to billing and collection. Because no COE, CWF, or IO/T investment is

allocated to the billing and collection category, however, no GSF

investment, and thus no portion of general purpose computer investment,

is allocated to the billing and collection category. Similarly, because

expenses related to GSF investment are allocated in the same manner as

GSF investment, no GSF expenses (including expenses related to general

purpose computers) are allocated to billing and collection. Price cap

LECs' costs allocated to the interstate billing and collection category

are estimated to be approximately $480 million.

17. As discussed in Section V of the Access Charge Reform Order, we

limit the scope of access reform, with some limited exceptions, to

price cap incumbent LECs. Consistent with our approach to reform the

interstate access charge regime, we tentatively conclude that our

proposed changes to the allocation of GSF investment will apply only to

price cap LECs. We will address the misallocation of rate-of-return

LECs' interstate costs between regulated interstate services and

nonregulated billing and collection activities in our separate access

reform proceeding for rate-of-return carriers in 1997, which will

provide us with the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of

the circumstances unique to these carriers. We seek comment on this

tentative conclusion regarding the scope of this proceeding.

18. To the extent that incumbent LECs' costs are underallocated to

the billing and collection category, incumbent LECs' regulated services

are recovering through interstate access charges costs associated with

unregulated services. We therefore tentatively conclude that price cap

incumbent LECs' general purpose computer costs attributable to billing

and collection should not be recovered through regulated access

charges. We seek comment on two options for reassigning these costs to

the billing and collection category.

19. Under the first option, a price cap LEC would study the uses of

the general purpose computer assets recorded in Account 2124 to

determine the percentage of investment in that account that is used for

billing and collection activities. That percentage, multiplied by the

ratio of the dollar amount in Account 2124 to the dollar amount in

Account 2110, which accumulates the total GSF investment, would be

applied to the interstate portion of Account 2110 to determine a dollar

amount that represents general purpose computer assets used for

interstate billing and collection activities. The dollar amount so

identified would be attributed directly to the billing and collection

category. The remainder of the interstate portion of Account 2110 shall

be apportioned among the access elements and the interexchange category

using the current investment allocator. General purpose computer

expenses recorded in Account 6124 would be treated in a similar fashion

to Account 2124. The interstate portion of Account 6124 would be

allocated between: (a) The billing and collection category, and (b) all

other elements and categories using the percentage derived for Account

2124. The remainder of Account 6120 (GSF expense) would be apportioned

based on current GSF allocators. Appropriate downward exogenous cost

adjustments would be made to all price cap baskets.

[[Page 31043]]

20. Two objections are commonly raised to the use of special

studies to make regulatory cost allocations. First, such studies are

said to be costly. We recognize that there are costs attached to a

special study approach. We note, however, that price cap LECs may

already be required to study the use of computer investment in Account

2124 as part of the process of allocating that investment between

regulated and nonregulated activities pursuant to the Part 64 joint

cost rules. Second, it may be claimed that permitting price cap LECs to

use special studies gives them too much discretion and that regulators

are unable to ascertain the validity of the studies. To remedy this

concern, we propose that each price cap LEC add to its cost allocation

manual (CAM) a new section entitled ``Interstate Billing and

Collection.'' That section would describe: (1) The manner in which the

price cap LEC provides interstate billing and collection services, and

(2) the study it uses to determine the portion of Account 2124

investment that it attributes to the billing and collection category.

The special study would then be subject to the same independent audit

requirements as other regulated and nonregulated cost allocations. In

addition, to obtain an independent certification of the validity of the

procedures adopted by the price cap LEC, we would instruct the

independent auditors to examine the design and execution of the study

during the first independent audit following the addition of the

billing and collection section to the CAM and to report their

conclusions on the validity of the study.

21. Under the second option, we would modify Sec. 69.307 of our

rules to require use of a general expense allocator to allocate the

interstate portion of Account 2110 between: (1) The billing and

collection category, and (2) all other elements and categories. We

propose to use the ``Big Three Expense'' allocator used elsewhere in

Part 69, excluding, however, any account or portion of an account that

is itself apportioned based on the apportionment of GSF to avoid

circularity. The GSF investment not allocated to the billing and

collection category would then be apportioned among the access elements

and the interexchange category using the current investment allocator.

This would ensure that GSF costs are allocated among all access

categories, including the billing and collection category. The

interstate portion of Account 6120 would be apportioned among all

elements and categories based on the overall apportionment of GSF

investment. This option covers only price cap incumbent LECs that

provide interstate billing and collection using regulated assets.

Carriers that acquire billing and collection services from unregulated

affiliates through affiliate transactions or from third parties would

continue recording their expenses for acquiring such services in

Account 6623, which is already apportioned to the billing and

collection category.

22. We invite parties to comment on the feasibility of these two

options and propose alternative methods for reassigning general purpose

computer costs to the billing and collection category. Parties should

also address the extent to which either option affects large and small

LECs differently and how small business entities, including small

incumbent LECs and new entrants, will be affected. We invite parties to

identify any changes that should be made to other access elements as a

result of any changes we may make to the GSF allocation procedures.

C. Procedural Issues

1. Ex Parte Presentations

23. This is a non-restricted notice-and-comment rulemaking

proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in

the Commission's rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.

2. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

24. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility

analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the

policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.

These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing

deadlines as comments on the rest of the FNPRM, but they must have a

separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the

regulatory flexibility analysis. The Secretary shall cause a copy of

the FNPRM, including the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to be

sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the RFA.

25. Reason for action. The Commission has revised its interstate

access charge rules to make them consistent with the Telecommunications

Act of 1996. As discussed in the FNPRM, multi-line business customers

will pay a higher subscriber line charge as a result of access charge

reform, while special access customers do not pay such a charge. In

addition, as the PICCs are phased in IXCs will be required to pay a

substantially higher PICC for a multi-line business end user compared

to the PICC paid for a primary residential end user or single-line

business end user. An IXC serving multi-line business customers through

special access can avoid paying the PICCs. As discussed in the FNPRM,

the current allocation of general support facilities expenses enables

incumbent LECs to recover through regulated interstate access charges

costs caused by the LECs' nonregulated billing and collection

functions.

26. Objectives. By proposing to allow LECs to impose a subscriber

line charge on special access customers, we seek to prevent a decrease

in projected revenue from multi-line subscriber line charges and PICCs

caused by the migration of certain multi-line business customers from

the public switched network to special access. We seek to revise the

Commission's current allocation of price cap LECs' interstate costs

between regulated interstate access services and nonregulated billing

and collection activities to move interstate access rates closer to

cost, consistent with the 1996 Act's new competitive paradigm.

27. Legal Basis. The proposed action is supported by Sections 4(i),

4(j), 201-205, 208, 251, 252, 253, and 403 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 208, 251, 252,

253, 403.

28. Description, potential impact and number of small entities

affected. For purposes of this FNPRM, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

defines a ``small business'' to be the same as a ``small business

concern'' under the Small Business Act (SBA), 15 U.S.C. 632, unless the

Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate

to its activities. See 5 U.S.C. sec. 601(3) (incorporating by reference

the definition of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. sec. 632).

Under the SBA, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) is

independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of

operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the

SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc., v.

Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994). The Small Business

Administration has defined a small business for Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) category 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except

Radiotelephone) to be a small entity that

[[Page 31044]]

has no more than 1500 employees. 13 CFR 121.201.

29. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The proposals in

the FNPRM, if adopted, would affect all LECs that are regulated by the

Commission's price cap rules. Currently, 13 incumbent LECs are subject

to price cap regulation. We tentatively conclude that all price cap

carriers have more than 1500 employees and, therefore, are not small

entities.

30. Reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirements. It

is not clear whether, on balance, all proposals in this FNPRM would

increase or decrease incumbent LECs' administrative burdens.

31. We believe that the reforms proposed in the first section of

the FNPRM would require price cap LECs (not small entities) to make at

least one tariff filing, and possibly several additional filings, but

otherwise should not affect their administrative burdens. The reforms

proposed in the second section of the FNPRM may require price cap LECs

(not small entities) to study the uses of the general purpose computer

assets recorded in Account 2124 to determine the percentage of

investment in that account that is used for billing and collection

activities, but otherwise should not affect their administrative

burdens.

32. Federal rules which overlap, duplicate or conflict with this

proposal. None.

33. Any significant alternatives minimizing impact on small

entities and consistent with stated objectives. In the FNPRM, we limit

the scope of our proposals to incumbent price cap LECs, thereby not

affecting small entities. We seek comment on these proposals and urge

that parties support their comments with specific evidence and

analysis.

3. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comment Filing Dates

34. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sec. 1.399 and

1.411 et seq. of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.399, 1.411 et seq.,

interested parties may file comments, including comments on the

information collection requirements, no later than June 26, 1997, with

the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington D.C.

20554. Interested parties must file replies no later than July 11,

1997, except that reply comments on the information collection

requirements are due no later that July 28, 1997. To file formally in

this proceeding, participants must file an original and twelve copies

of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If

participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their

comments, an original plus 16 copies must be filed. In addition,

parties should file two copies of any such pleading with the

Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Room 518, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will

be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington D.C.

20554.

35. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them along with

their formal filings to the Office of the Secretary. Submissions should

be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in a DOS PC compatible form. The

document should be saved in WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows format. The

diskette should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should

be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading

(comment or reply comment), docket number, and date of submission.

36. You may also file informal comments electronically via e-mail

[email protected]>. Only one copy of electronically-filed comments must

be submitted. You must put the docket number of this proceeding in the

subject line (see the caption at the beginning of this FNPRM, or in the

body of the text if by Internet). You must note whether an electronic

submission is an exact copy of formal comments on the subject line. You

also must include your full name and Postal Service mailing address in

your submission.

37. Comments and replies must comply with Section 1.49 and all

other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We also direct all

interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date

of the filing on each page of their comments and replies. Comments and

replies must also clearly identify the specific portion of this FNPRM

to which a particular comment or set of comments is responsive. If a

portion of a party's comments does not fall under a particular topic

listed in the Table of Contents of this FNPRM, such comments must be

included in a clearly labelled section at the beginning or end of the

filing.

38. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due July 28, 1997. Written comments must be

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed

and/or modified information collections on or before 60 days after date

of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments

with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information

collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to Timothy Fain,

OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

D. Ordering Clauses

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1-4, 10, 201-205,

251, 254, 303(r), and 410(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, and Section 601 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47

U.S.C. secs. 10, 151-154, 201-205, 224, 251, 254, 303(r) 410(a), and

601, that notice is hereby given of the rulemaking described above and

that comment is sought on these issues.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 69

Access charges, Communications common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-14629 Filed 6-5-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-U