Revision of Filing Requirements

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 43, 63, 64, and 65

[CC Docket No. 96-23, DA 96-1873]

Revision of Filing Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 8, 1996, the Common Carrier Bureau adopted a

Report and Order, ``Revision of Filing Requirements,'' that eliminates

or significantly reduces reporting requirements imposed on

communications common carriers by the Commission's policies and rules.

As a result of this action, thirteen reporting requirements have been

eliminated, and the frequency of filing for four other reports has been

reduced.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Beers, Deputy Chief, Industry Analysis Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-0952, or Scott Bergmann, Industry Analysis

Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-7102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Common Carrier

Bureau's Report and Order, ``Revision of Filing Requirements,'' adopted

November 8, 1996 and released November 13, 1996 (CC Docket No. 96-23,

DA 96-1873). The full text of the Report and Order is available for

inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, Washington, DC 20554. The

Report and Order has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and has been approved in

accordance with the provisions of that Act (OMB Control No. 3060-0701).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) offered its strong support

for the actions as proposed. The complete text also may be purchased

from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc. (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: The actions taken regarding the collections of

information contained in the Report and Order have been analyzed with

respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and

have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under

OMB control number 3060-0701. OMB offered its strong support for the

actions. In addition, OMB made three suggestions in addition to the

proposals: (1) That the word ``annual'' be added to the revised

language for Sec. 65.600(b) \1\ to make clear that the reports are

required on an annual basis; (2) that the Commission conduct a

rulemaking to address the filing requirements associated with the ARMIS

and CAM reporting thresholds; and (3) that the Commission consider

modifying the annual access tariff filing periods to coincide with the

periods covered by the interstate rate of return monitoring reports.\2\

First, we agree with OMB and ALLTEL that the revised language for

Sec. 65.600(b) should more clearly specify that reports are required on

an annual basis. We believe that the revised language for

Sec. 65.600(b), adopted in the Report and Order, achieves that result.

Second, as discussed at Part IV of the Report and Order, the Commission

will address ARMIS and CAM filing requirements and carrier

classification in another proceeding. Finally, we decline to alter the

annual access tariff filing period because the present schedule allows

the Commission to use the current years rate-of-return reports to

evaluate and calculate annual access tariffs.

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

\1\ Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, at 2 (OMB

No. 3060-0701) (released May 30, 1996). OMB suggests a change to

Sec. 65.500(b). We assume this to be a typographical error. ALLTEL,

whose suggestion OMB specifically supports, also suggests a change

to Sec. 65.600(b).

\2\ Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, at 2.

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

OMB Approval Number: 3060-0701.

Title: Revision of Filing Requirements, CC Docket 96-23, DA 96-

1873.

Form Number: FCC 492.

[[Page 5161]]

Repondents: Business or other for profit, including small

businesses.

Burden Estimate:

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

Title Respondents Est. time per resp. Frequency Annual burden

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

1. Circuit Report............. 0 0 hours.............. 0 per year............... 0 hours.

2. Record Carrier Letter...... 0 0 hours.............. 0 per year............... 0 hours.

3. Report on Inside Wiring 0 0 hours.............. 0 per year............... 0 hours.

Services.

4. FCC 492 Rate of Return..... 35 8 hours.............. 1 per year............... 280 hours.

5. New Service Tracking Report 16 20................... ......................... 104 hours.

6. Report of Unsecured Credit 13 8.................... 1 per year............... 104 hours.

to Political Candidates.

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

Total Annual Burden: 488 total hours.

Estimated Costs Per Respondent: $0.00.

Needs and Uses: The Commission eliminated thirteen reporting

requirements and reduced the frequency of four reporting requirements

imposed on communications common carriers, including Regional Bell

Operating Companies, other local telephone companies, record carriers,

AT&T and Sprint. The information received will be used to assist the

Federal Communications Commission in performing its public oversight

duties. The actions taken regarding the collection of information

subject to the PRA contained in this Report and Order have been

approved by OMB under OMB control number 3060-0701. OMB Control number

3060-0701 expires 5/31/99.

Summary of the Report and Order

1. In this Report and Order, and pursuant to delegated authority,

we adopt proposals set out in the Commission's Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM), Revision of Reporting Requirements, to eliminate

thirteen information reporting requirements imposed on communications

common carriers by the Commission's rules and policies.\3\ We also

reduce pursuant to the NPRM, the frequency of filing obligations for

four other reporting requirements imposed pursuant to Commission

orders.

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

\3\ Revision of Filing Requirements, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-23, FCC 96-64, (released February 27,

1996), 61 FR 10522 (March 14, 1996). The Commission delegated to the

Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, authority to determine whether to

adopt any of the proposals set forth in that notice of proposed

rulemaking and to issue any necessary reports or orders arising in

that rulemaking. NPRM at para. 21.

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

2. The Commission in the NPRM proposed to eliminate thirteen, and

reduce the frequency of filing for six, information collection

requirements applied to communications common carriers.\4\ Earlier, the

Commission had ordered the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) to conduct a

review of all reports filed with the Bureau, including those reports

not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.\5\ In fact, the NPRM that

initiated this proceeding is but one instance of the Commission's on-

going commitment to eliminate unnecessary and burdensome regulation,

including reporting requirements.\6\ Other deregulatory initiatives

will follow upon the Commission's continuing review of its statutory

mandate and its own practices and procedures.\7\

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

\4\ Id. at par. 2. While the Commission proposed modify six

reports pursuant to the NPRM, the Commission's proposals concerning

the Automated Reporting and Management Information System (ARMIS)

quality of service reports and the Payphone Compensation reports

have been mooted by the passage of the Telecommunications Act of

1996 and subsequent Commission actions. See 47 U.S. 272(b)(5),

276(b)(1)(A); Revision of Filing Requirements and Implementation of

Section 402(b)(2)(B) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Annual

ARMIS Reports, Order, CC Docket No. 96-23, DA 96-381 (released March

20, 1996), 61 FR 18143 (April 24, 1996) (Annual ARMIS Reports

Order); Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and

Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,

Report and Order, CC Docket 96-128, FCC 96-388 (released September

20, 1996), 61 FR 52307 (October 7, 1996) (Payphone Compensation

Order). See also Part IV of the Report and Order.

\5\ NPRM at para. 2.

\6\ NPRM at para. 27.

\7\ Id.

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

3. In this proceeding, commenters \8\ generally support the

Commission's proposals,\9\ while several urge the Commission to go

further and delete or modify reporting requirements other than those

set out in the NPRM.\10\ Although we in almost all cases deny these

requests as going beyond the scope of this proceeding, we will take

into account the commenters' suggestions during our continuing

review.\11\ Any further action will be undertaken only after affording

opportunity for comment on discrete proposals in appropriate

proceedings.

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

\8\ Fifteen parties filed comments in this proceeding. Six of

these parties and three additional parties filed reply comments.

Appendix A of the Report and Order lists the commenters as well as

the short names this Report and Order uses to refer to them.

Additionally, on April 26, 1996, APCC filed a Request for leave to

File Late Reply Comments, which it further identified as ``Ex Parte

or Late Filed,'' to reply to issues raised in comments filed by AT&T

and Sprint. We grant APCC's petition to the extent that we accept

its comments as informal comments pursuant to Sec. 1.419(b) of the

Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.419(b).

\9\ See, e.g., Pacific Bell Comments at 1-2; NYNEX Comments at

1; Bellsouth Comments at 1; ALLTEL Comments at 1; AT&T Comments at

1; GTE Comments at ii. Other parties directed their comments to

certain proposals contained in the NPRM. See, e.g., CompTel Comments

at 1, n.2 (addressing BOC-filed billing and collection contracts);

NECA Comments at 1 (addressing FCC Form 492 and pooling reports);

INS Comments at 1-2 (addressing, inter alia, semi-annual circuit

reports, but generally ``(applauding) the Commission's efforts to

reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on carriers' and the

Commission's scare resources'').

\10\ See e.g., GTE Comments at ii (endorsing NPRM proposals and

generally urging Bureau to undertake more comprehensive review of

reporting requirements).

\11\ See Part IV of the Report and Order.

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

4. As a result of this action, the following reports have been

eliminated: Equal Access Progress Report; Construction Budget Summary;

National Security and Emergency Preparedness Effectiveness Report; AT&T

Customer Premises Equipment and Installation Maintenance Report; AT&T

Nondiscrimination Report for Enhanced Service Providers; AT&T Service

Quality: Equipment Blockage and Failure Report; Bell Operating Company

(BOC) Customer Premises Equipment Installation and Maintenance Report;

BOC Customer Premises Equipment Affidavits for Nondiscriminatory

Provision of Network Maintenance; BOC Sales Agency Program and Vendor

Support Program Report; Billing and Collection Contracts Report;

Circuit Report; Record Carrier Letter; and Report on Inside Wiring.

5. In addition, the filing frequency for the following reports has

been significantly reduced: Form 492--Rate of Return Report (from

quarterly to annual submissions); Joint Board Monitoring Program--

Pooling Report (from monthly to quarterly submissions); New Service

Tracking Report (from quarterly to annual submissions); and Report of

Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates (from semi-annual annual

submissions).

[[Page 5162]]

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A. Introduction

1. The Commission in the NPRM concluded that an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) mandated in certain circumstances by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) was not required as there were no

small entities affected by the proposals described in the NPRM.\12\

After the NPRM was adopted, however, Congress amended the RFA in the

Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Public Law No.

104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).\13\ Pursuant to the amended requirements

of the RFA and after further consideration of the potential economic

impact on small entities, the Report and Order includes a Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) as set out below.

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

\12\ NPRM at para. 22.

\13\ Subtitle II of the CWAAA is ``The Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996'' (SBREFA), codified at 5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.

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

B. Need for and Objectives of the Rules and Actions Taken

2. In the Report and Order, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau),

upon delegated authority from the Commission, eliminates thirteen

reporting requirements and modifies four others so as to significantly

reduce the frequency by which affected entities must file information

with the Commission. The Bureau takes these actions in furtherance of

the President's Regulatory Reform Initiative and the overall de-

regulatory objectives of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This action is

part of the Commission's and Bureau's continuing efforts to reduce the

regulatory burden on the public by reducing the amount of information

the public must provide to the Commission. In short, the results of the

Bureau's actions in the Report and Order are entirely deregulatory and

represent significant reductions of the burdens imposed on the public--

including small entities. No additional or substitute burdens are

imposed on the public to replace the reporting requirements that are

eliminated.

C. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to

the IRFA

3. As explained in paragraph one of the Report and Order, the

Commission in the NPRM concluded that an IRFA was not required and, as

a result, no comments were filed addressing such an analysis. In

general, however, the commenters praised and supported the

Commissions's proposed deregulatory actions. In fact, no party opposed

any of the deregulatory actions adopted in the Report and Order. While

not every partly discussed every action proposed in the NPRM, the

overwhelming consensus was that the actions taken in the Report and

Order--all of which serve either to eliminate or reduce filing burdens

imposed by regulation--would serve the public interest. Some parties

encouraged the Commission to make additional revisions to reporting

requirements beyond those proposed in the NPRM.\14\ Accordingly, we

conclude that nothing in the record demonstrates that small entities

will be adversely affected by implementation of the Report and Order.

This conclusion is bolstered by the supportive comments of USTA, whose

members include small and mid-size companies.\15\

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

\14\ See generally Part IV of the Report and Order, (discussing

proposals to revise reports not discussed in the NPRM); see also

Part III of the Report and Order, (discussing commenters' proposals

to eliminate reports that the Commission proposed for modification).

See, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 5-6 (urging the Commission to

eliminate ARMIS Reports 43-01, 43-02, and 43-03).

\15\ See USTA Comments at 1-3; USTA Reply Comments at 1.

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

D. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Businesses to Which

Rules and Actions Will Apply

4. For purposes of this analysis, we examined the relevant

definition of ``small entity'' or ``small business'' and applied this

definition to examine those entities that are subject to the reporting

requirements in question. The RFA defines a ``small business'' to be

the same as a ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act,

15 U.S.C. 632, unless the Commission has developed one or more

definitions that are appropriate to its activities.\16\ Under the Small

Business Act, 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

Small Business Administration (SBA).\17\ Moreover, SBA has defined a

small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category

481 (Telephone Communications) to be small entities when they have

fewer than 1,500 employees.\18\

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

\16\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the

definition of ``small business concern'' in 5 U.S.C.

\17\ 15 U.S.C. 632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc.

v. Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82, 89 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

\18\ 13 CFR 121.201.

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

5. As an initial matter we note that, as demonstrated by the

following list, the entities affected by the vast majority of the

deregulatory actions taken by the Bureau in the Report and Order are

among the largest communications companies, namely, AT&T, Sprint, the

Regional (Bell) Holding Companies (RHCs), and the Bell Operating

Companies (BOCs):

(1) Equal Access Progress Report: submitted by AT&T and RHCs;

(2) Construction Budget Summary: submitted by AT&T and RHCs;

(3) National Security and Emergency Preparedness Effectiveness

Report (NSEP Report): submitted annually by AT&T and Bellcore;

(4) AT&T Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): Installation &

Maintenance Report;

(5) AT&T Service Quality: Equipment Blockage and Failure Report;

(6) AT&T Nondiscrimination Report for Enhanced Service Providers;

(7) BOC Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) Affidavits for Non-

Discrimination Provision of Network Maintenance;

(8) BOC Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) Installation &

Maintenance Report;

(9) BOC Sales Agency Program and Vendor Support Program Report;

(10) Billing and Collection Contracts: submitted by incumbent local

exchange carriers (ILECs).

(11) Circuit Report: filed by 36 nondominant carriers.

(12) Record Carrier Letter: filed by record carriers with operating

revenues over $75 million.

(13) Report on Inside Wiring Service: filed by ILECs with operating

revenues over $100 million;

(14) Form 492 Rate of Return Report: filed by ILECs not subject to

price cap regulation and the National Exchange Carrier Association

(NECA);

(15) Joint Board Monitoring Program: Pooling: submitted by NECA;

(16) New Service Tracking Report: submitted by ILECs subject to

price-cap regulation;

(17) Report of Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates: submitted

by all carriers having revenue in excess of $1 million.

6. Setting aside the ten actions that are addressed exclusively to

some of the largest communications entities, only the adopted actions

addressing the following reports would appear to possibly implicate

some small entities: (3) NSEP Report; (10) Billing and Collection; (11)

Circuit Report; (12) Record Carrier Letter; (14) Form 492 Rate of

Return Report; (15) Joint Board Monitoring Program; and (17) Report of

Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates. Moreover, it is easy to

quantify the number of all entities (i.e., including a putative smaller

number of small entities) affected by four of the

[[Page 5163]]

seven actions not addressed exclusively to the largest entities. Thus,

action (3), NSEP Report, affects only one entity other than AT&T

(Bellcore); action (11), Circuit Report, affects only 36 entities;

action (12), Record Carrier Letter, affects only two entities; and

action (15), Joint Board Monitoring Program, affects only one entity

(NECA). Assuming, arguendo, that some of these affected entities are

``small business'' or ``small entities,'' the subset of such putative

small businesses or entities could only, by definition, equal and not

exceed the forty (40) members that, at a maximum, constitute the

affected entity set for these four actions. Furthermore, the regulatory

actions adopted in the Report and Order, in every case, effect

reductions in regulatory burdens: as a result of the Report and Order,

fewer regulatory burdens are imposed on all affected entities, large

and small alike.

7. Thus, only three of the report-related actions adopted in the

Report and Order are addressed to entity groups for which small

business or entity subsets, per SBA definition, are difficult to

identify and quantify: (10) Billing and Collection (submitted by all

ILECs); (14) Form 492 Rate of Return Report (filed by NECA and all

ILECs not subject to price cap regulation); and (17) Report of

Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates (submitted by all carriers

having revenue in excess of $1 million). We proceed to consider these

entity groups.

8. First, addressing the groups ``all ILECs'' and ``all ILECs not

subject to price cap regulations,'' we note that only one action, (10),

Billing and Collection, affects ILECs generally, while a second, (14)

Rate of Return Report, affects one readily identifiable entity (NECA)

and a subset of ``all ILECs'' that excludes the largest ILECs (i.e.,

``all ILECs not subject to price cap regulation''). Furthermore, we

note that the Commission has found ILECs to be ``dominant in their

field of operation'' since the early 1980's, and consistently has

certified under the RFA \19\ that ILECs are not subject to regulatory

flexibility analyses because they are not small businesses.\20\ The

Commission has made similar determinations in other areas.\21\ We

firmly believe that the Commission's consistent and long-standing

definitional treatment of all ILECs as dominant (and hence exempt from

treatment as small businesses under prong (2) of the SBA test set out

supra) should not be altered here. We will, however, out of an

abundance of caution and prudence, include small ILECs, as defined in

relation to SBA SIC 481, in this FRFA to remove any possible issue of

RFA compliance.

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

\19\ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

\20\ See, e.g., Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone

Company Facilities, Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6

FCC Rcd 5809 (1991), 56 FR 52496 (October 21, 1991).

\21\ See, e.g., Implementation of Sections of the Cable

Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Sixth

Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd

7393, 7418 (1995), 60 FR 35854 (July 12, 1995).

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

9. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of

small providers of local exchange services. The closest applicable

definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies (SIC 4813). The most

reliable source of information regarding the number of ILECs nationwide

of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually

in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).

According to our most recent data, 1,347 companies reported that they

were engaged in the provision of local exchange services.\22\ Although

it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently

owned and operated (prong 1 of the SBA definition of small business

concerns), or have more than 1,500 employees (prong 3), we are unable

at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of ILECs

that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition.

Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,347 small ILECs

that may be affected by the actions adopted in the Report and Order.

Again, in every case, these actions either eliminate or reduce the

regulatory burdens imposed on any such small ILECs.

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

\22\ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis

Division, ``Telecommunications Industry Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet

Data'', Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported

by Class of Carrier) (February 1996) (TRS Worksheet).

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

10. The final deregulatory action adopted by the Report and Order

poses the most difficulty in identifying affected small business

concerns. Number (17), Report of Unsecured Credit to Political

Candidates, must be submitted by all carriers having revenue in excess

of $1 million. The relevant set of small business concerns affected by

this report obviously includes the set of ILECs identified above

(``fewer than 1,347 small ILECs'') to the extent that any earn more

than $1 million in annual revenues, but also must include small

business concern from all other carrier groups, including both wireline

and wireless (radiotelephone) carriers.\23\ We first discuss non-LEC

wireline carriers, including interexchange carriers (IXCs), competitive

access providers (CAPs), Operator Service Providers (OSPs), Pay

Telephone Operators, and resellers.

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

\23\ SBA has established SIC 4812 to distinguish small entities

providing radiotelephone communications from SIC 4813 small entities

providing telephone communications except radiotelephone.

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

11. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed definitions for

small entities specifically applicable to these wireline service types.

The closest applicable definition under SBA rules for all these service

types is for telephone communications companies other than

radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of

information regarding the number of IXCs, CAPs, OSPs, Pay Telephone

Operators, and resellers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be

the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS. According

to our most recent data: 97 companies reported that they are engaged in

the provision of interexchange services; 30 companies reported that

they are engaged in the provision of competitive access services; 29

companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator

services; 197 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision

of pay telephone services; and 206 companies reported that they are

engaged in the resale of telephone services.\24\ Although it seems

certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and

operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and, further, that within

the potential set of small entities not all would earn annual revenues

in excess of $1 million, we are unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of IXCs, CAPs, OSPs, Pay Telephone

Operators, and resellers that would both qualify as small business

concerns under SBA's definition and be subject to the Report's $1

million annual revenue requirement. Consequently, we estimate that

there are fewer than 97 small entity IXCs; 30 small entity CAPs; 29

small entity OSPs; 197 small entity pay telephone service providers;

and 206 small entity providers of resale telephone service that might

be affected by the actions and rules adopted in the Report and Order.

Again, in every case, these actions and rules either eliminate or

reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on any such small entities.

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

\24\ TRS Worksheet, at Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications

Revenue Reported by Class of Carrier).

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

12. We now discuss non-wireline carriers, including: Wireless

(Radiotelephone) Carriers; Cellular Service Carriers; and Mobile

Service Carriers.

[[Page 5164]]

13. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for Wireless

(Radiotelephone) Carriers. The Census Bureau reports that there were

1,176 such companies in operation for at least one year at the end of

1992.\25\ According to SBA's definition, a small business

radiotelephone company is one employing fewer than 1,500 persons.\26\

The Census Bureau also reported that 1,164 of those radiotelephone

companies had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all of the

remaining 12 companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still

be 1,164 radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities

if they are independently owned and operated. Although it seems certain

that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated,

and, further, that within the set of potential small entities not all

such entities would earn annual revenues in excess of $1 million, we

are unable to estimate with greater precision the number of

radiotelephone carriers and service providers that would both qualify

as small business concerns under SBA's definition and be subject to the

Report's $1 million annual revenue requirement. Consequently, we

estimate that there are fewer than 1,164 small entity radiotelephone

companies that might be affected by the actions and rules adopted in

the Report and Order. Again, in every case, these actions and rules

either eliminate or reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on any such

small entities.

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

\25\ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

``1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities:

Establishment and Firm Size,'' at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (1992

Census).

\26\ 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC

Code 4812).

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

14. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of

small entities specifically applicable to Cellular Service Carriers and

to Mobile Service Carriers. The closest applicable definition under SBA

rules for both services is for telephone companies other than

radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of

information regarding the number of Cellular Service Carriers and

Mobile Service Carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be

the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS. According

to our most recent data, 789 companies reported that they are engaged

in the provision of cellular services and 117 companies reported that

they are engaged in the provision of mobile services.\27\ Although it

seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned

and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and, further, that

within the potential set of small entities not all would earn annual

revenues in excess of $1 million, we are unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the number of Cellular Service Carriers

and Mobile Service Carriers that would qualify as small business

concerns under SBA's definition and be subject to the Report's $1

million annual revenue requirement. Consequently, we estimate that

there are fewer than 789 small entity Cellular Service Carriers and

fewer than 117 small entity Mobile Service Carriers that might be

affected by the actions and rules adopted in the Report and Order.

Again, in every case, these actions and rules either eliminate or

reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on any such small entities.

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

\27\ TRS Worksheet, at Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications

Revenue Reported by Class of Carrier).

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

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and Other

Compliance Requirements of the Rules

15. As detailed in the body of the Report and Order, these rules

will significantly reduce the amount of reporting, record keeping, and

compliance requirements which was previously placed on the regulated

entities--including the small entities identified above. In our efforts

to quantify the economic impact of this Report and Order on small

businesses, we refer to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and

its analyses of administrative burdens imposed by agency rules and

policies.\28\ OMB has approved Bureau estimates of ``burden hours'' for

the following reports which our analysis has shown to affect small

entities: (11) Circuit Report, (12) Record Carrier Letter, (14) Form

492 Rate of Return Report, and (17) Report of Unsecured Credit to

Political Candidates.\29\

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

\28\ Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (1995).

\29\ NPRM.

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

16. With respect to those four reports affecting small entities

that are eliminated by this Report and Order, the Bureau has prepared

and OMB has approved estimates of the benefits for two of these

reports: (10) Circuit Report and (12) Record Carrier Letter.\30\

According to these Bureau and OMB estimates, the Bureau's action to

eliminate the Circuit Report will result in a savings of 500 hours per

year, in toto, to the nondominant carriers formerly required to file

that report.\31\ For those record carriers formerly required to file

the Record Carrier Report, it is estimated that this Report and Order

will save approximately 20 hours per year, in toto, by eliminating this

report.\32\ While OMB does not maintain estimates for the other two

reports eliminated, (1) NSEP Report and (10) Billing and Collection

Report, it is clear that, as a result of the Bureau's actions, the

small businesses previously subject to these reports will see reduced

expenses for associated accounting, legal, and administrative

activities.

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

\30\ See Section D of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(concluding that four reports eliminated by this Report and Order

might potentially affect small entities: (1) NSEP Report, (10)

Billing and Collection Report, (11) Circuit Report, and (12) Record

Carrier Letter).

\31\ NPRM. See OMB No. 3060-0149. The per-hour reduction was

calculated by comparing the OMB hourly estimates provided in the

NPRM (showing the burden on entities after the Report and Order)

with the OMB control number listing (showing the approved burdens

for the respective reporting requirements as existing before this

Report and Order).

\32\ NPRM. See OMB No. 3060-0515.

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

17. As set out in Section D of the Report and Order, the Bureau

modified three reports that might potentially affect small entities:

(14) Form 492 Rate of Return Report, (15) Joint Board Monitoring

Program, and (17) Report of Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates.

According to OMB analysis of report (14), the Form 492 Rate of Return

Report, the Bureau's action in this Report and Order will reduce the

total burden on all businesses, both small and otherwise, by 840 hours

per year.\33\ OMB estimates for report (17), Report of Unsecured Credit

to Political Candidates, indicate that as a result of the Bureau's

action in this Report and Order, carriers--small entities and

otherwise--will spend 104 hours less per year, in toto, to comply with

the reporting requirements.\34\ With respect to (15) the Joint Board

Monitoring Program, no OMB estimates are available to calculate the

precise economic benefit to NECA--the only entity subject to this

reporting requirement; however, it is clear that by reducing the

frequency of filing from monthly to quarterly reports, NECA will bear a

relatively smaller burden than it did under the prior schedule.

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

\33\ NPRM. See OMB No. 3060-0355.

\34\ NPRM. See OMB No. 3060-0147.

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

F. Steps Taken to Minimize Impact on Small Entities Consistent With

Stated Objectives

18. As discussed in detail in Section E of the Report and Order, to

the extent that if affects small entities, the impact of this Report

and Order is only beneficial. The primary thrust of this Report and

Order is to reduce administrative burdens wherever possible. It does

not impose any new

[[Page 5165]]

requirements. Because this action does not include changes in format

reports or additional reporting requirements, there are no steps

necessary to minimize any impact on small entities. Small entities and

large entities alike should be able to benefit immediately from the

Bureau's actions to eliminate or reduce requirements pursuant to this

Report and Order.

G. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected

19. Again, the action does not impose additional burdens on small

entities and will in fact have a positive impact by reducing

administrative burdens on a wide variety of entities. Nonetheless, we

did consider a number of alternatives to the Report and Order as

issued.

20. Where we merely modified the filing frequency, we received

comments from a number of parties recommending that we instead

eliminate the subject reporting requirements.\35\ We carefully

considered these options in light of our own experience and in light of

reply comments from other parties. As discussed in detail in Part III,

we are persuaded that these reports still serve important interests and

should be retained.\36\ We conclude that this Report and Order achieves

the proper balance between reducing burdens and fulfilling important

monitoring objectives.

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

\35\ See Part III of the Report and Order (discussing

alternative proposals submitted by commenters for the Form 492 Rate

of Return Report, at para. 37-38, Joint Board Monitoring Program, at

para. 40-41, New Service Tracking Report, at para. 43-46, Report of

Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates, at para. 48-49).

\36\ Id.

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

21. Another alternative considered was offered by CompTel, an

association of telecommunications providers including interexchange

carriers. CompTel suggested imposing a new requirement to replace the

Billing and Collections Report. While specifically supporting our

proposed elimination of the Billing and Collections Report, CompTel

argued that copies of all such contracts should be filed with the

Commission. We rejected CompTel's proposal because it would impose

significant administrative burdens on ILECs, both large and small, to

monitor a market which the vast majority of the parties concluded to be

fully competitive.

22. We received several proposals to eliminate or alter reports

which were not addressed in the NPRM. For example, Cincinnati Bell

Telephone, a self-described mid-size local exchange carrier, proposes

that the Commission increase the revenue threshold for filing for

various reports including Cost Allocation Manuals (CAMS).\37\ While we

recognize that such changes might exempt smaller ILECs from some of

these filing requirements, we choose not be follow such suggestions

without giving other parties an opportunity to comment. We believe that

this and other such proposals would be more appropriately considered in

a separate proceeding and are outside the scope of our delegated

authority. To that extent, we reaffirm that this Report and Order is a

reflection of our continuing commitment to minimizing the adverse

impact of the Commission's rules.

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

\37\ Cincinnati Bell Telephone Comments at 1-2.

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

H. Report to Congress

23. The Bureau shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, along with the Report and Order, in a report to

Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness

Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also be

published in the Federal Register.

Ordering Clauses

24. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),

201-205, 218, 226, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218, 226, 303(r), and

Secs. 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91 and 0.291,

that the Commission's rules and policies are amended as set forth

below, effective March 6, 1997.

25. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of

the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91 and 0.291, that the proposal in

Revision of Filing Requirements that Payphone Compensation reports be

filed semiannually is rescinded.

List of Subjects In

47 CFR Part 43

Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.

47 CFR Part 63

Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.

47 CFR Part 64

Civil defense, Communications common carriers, Credits, Political

candidates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telegraph,

Telephone.

47 CFR Part 65

Communications common carriers, Credits, Political candidates,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

Peyton Wynns,

Chief, Industry Analysis Division.

Rule Changes

Parts 43, 63, 64, and 65 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal

Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 43--REPORTS OF COMMUNICATIONS COMMON CARRIERS AND CERTAIN

AFFILIATES

1. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154;

Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, secs. 402(b)(2)(B),

(c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply

secs. 211, 219, 220, 48 Stat. 1073, 1077, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 211,

219, 220.

2. Paragraph (d) of Sec. 43.21 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 43.21 Annual reports of carriers and certain affiliates.

* * * * *

(d) Each miscellaneous common carrier (as defined by Sec. 21.2 of

this chapter) with operating revenues for a calendar year in excess of

the indexed revenue threshold shall file with the Common Carrier Bureau

Chief a letter showing its operating revenues for that year and the

value of its total communications plant at the end of that year. This

letter must be filed by March 31 of the following year.

* * * * *

Sec. 43.41 [Removed and Reserved]

3. Section 43.41 is removed and reserved.

PART 63--EXTENSION OF LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE

AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIER; AND GRANTS OF

RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS

4. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 201-205, 218, and 403 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sec. 613 of the Cable

Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 USC 151, 154(i) 15(j), 201-

205, 218, 403, and 533 unless otherwise noted.

Sec. 63.07 [Amended]

5. Section 63.07 is amended by removing paragraph (b) and

[[Page 5166]]

redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

6. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154,

Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, secs. 402(b)(2)(B),

(c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply

secs. 201, 218, 226, 228, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C.

201, 218, 226, 228 unless otherwise noted.

7. Section 64.804 is amended by revising the first sentence of the

introductory text of paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec. 64.804 Rules governing the extension of unsecured credit to

candidates or persons on behalf of such candidates for Federal office

for interstate and foreign common carrier communication services.

* * * * *

(g) On or before January 31, 1973, and on corresponding dates of

each year thereafter, each carrier which had operating revenues in the

preceding year in excess of $1 million shall file with the Commission a

report by account of any amount due and unpaid, as of the end of the

month prior to the reporting date, for interstate and foreign

communications services to a candidate or person on behalf of such

candidate when such amount results from the extension of unsecured

credit. * * *

PART 65--INTERSTATE RATE OF RETURN PRESCRIPTION PROCEDURES AND

METHODOLOGIES

8. The authority citation for Part 65 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 403, 48 Stat.,

1066, 1072, 1077, 1094, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 202,

203, 204, 205, 218, 219, 220, 403.

9. Section 65.600 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

Sec. 65.600 Rate of return reports

* * * * *

(b) Each local exchange carrier or group of affiliated carriers

which is not subject to Secs. 61.41 through 61.49 of this chapter and

which has filed individual access tariffs during the preceding

enforcement period shall file with the Commission within three (3)

months after the end of each calendar year, an annual rate of return

monitoring report which shall be the enforcement period report. Reports

shall be filed on the appropriate report form prescribed by the

Commission (see s 1.795 of this chapter) and shall provide full and

specific answers to all questions propounded and information requested

in the currently effective report form. The number of copies to be

filed shall be specified in the applicable report form. At least one

copy of the report shall be signed on the signature page by the

responsible officer. A copy of each report shall be retained in the

principal office of the respondent and shall be filed in such a manner

as to be readily available for reference and inspection. Final

adjustments to the enforcement period report shall be made by September

30 of the year following the enforcement period to ensure that any

refunds can be properly reflected in an annual access filing.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97-2703 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M