Public Information Collections Approved by Office of Management and Budget

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Public Information Collections Approved by Office of Management

and Budget

November 18, 1997.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public

information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, Pub. L. 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person

is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control number. For further information

contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-

1379.

Federal Communications Commission

OMB Control No.: 3060-0802.

Expiration Date: 05/31/1998.

Title: Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Order

on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 92-237 (Message Intercept

Requirement).

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 1400 respondents; 9 hours per response

(avg.); 12,600 total annual burden hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Description: In response to concern expressed in the

reconsideration record that LECs should develop intercept messages to

inform dial-around customers that they need to dial additional digits,

the Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 92-237, titled,

``Administration of the North American Numbering Plan,'' requires that

LECs offer a standard intercept message beginning on or before June 30,

1998, explaining that a dialing pattern change has occurred and

instructing the caller to contact its IXC for further information. In

developing an intercept message, LECs must consult with IXCs and reach

agreement on the content of the message and on the period of time

during which the message will be provided. The Commission leaves to

resolution by the parties decisions about who should have the ultimate

responsibility for determining the content of the intercept message and

the period of time during which the message must be offered. The

Commission states that it will resolve any disputes arising from

parties' inability to reach agreement on such matters. Finally, the

Commission

[[Page 62609]]

concludes that the determination of how best to cover the costs of

providing the intercept message should be left to individual LECs,

including whether their access customers should be charged a reasonable

fee to cover those costs. The Commission has imposed these third party

disclosure requirements to educate end users about their inability to

reach carriers using five-digit access codes, and the need to dial

seven-digit access codes instead. Compliance obligation is required.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0760.

Expiration Date: 05/31/1998.

Title: Access Charge Reform--CC Docket No. 96-262, First Report and

Order; Second Order on Reconsideration and Memorandum Opinion and

Order.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for profit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 14 respondents; 128,906 hours per response

(avg.); 1,804,690 total annual burden hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $31,200.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and one-time.

Description: In the First Report and Order (Order), CC Docket No.

96-262, Access Charge Reform and the Second Order on Reconsideration

and Memorandum Opinion and Order, the FCC adopts, that, consistent with

principles of cost-causation and economic efficiency, non-traffic

sensitive (NTS) costs associated with local switching should be

recovered on an NTS basis, through flat-rated, per month charges. The

information collections are as follows: a. Showings Under the Market-

Based Approach: As competition develops in the market, the FCC will

gradually relax and ultimately remove existing Part 69 federal access

rate structure requirements and Part 61 price caps restrictions on rate

level changes. Regulatory reform will take place in two phases. The

first phase of regulatory reform will take place when an incumbent

Local Exchange Carrier's (LEC) network has been opened to competition

for interstate access services. The second phase of rate structure

reforms will take place when an actual competitive presence has

developed in the marketplace. Detariffing will take place when

substantial competition has developed for the access charge elements.

In our initial statement, we proposed that in order for LECs to meet

this standard, they have to demonstrate that: (1) Unbundled network

element prices are based on geographically deaveraged, forward-looking

economic costs in a manner that reflects the way costs are incurred;

(2) transport and termination charges are based on the additional cost

of transporting and terminating another carrier's traffic; (3)

wholesale prices for retail services are based on reasonably avoidable

costs; (4) network elements and services are capable of being

provisioned rapidly and consistent with a significant level of demand;

(5) dialing parity is provided by the incumbent LEC to competitors; (6)

number portability is provided by the incumbent LEC to competitors; (7)

access to incumbent LEC rights-of-way is provided to competitors; and

(8) open and non-discriminatory network standards and protocols are put

into effect. We propose that the second phase of rate structure reforms

would take place when an actual competitive presence has developed in

the marketplace. LECs would have to show the following to indicate that

actual competition has developed in the marketplace by: (1)

Demonstrated presence of competition; (2) full implementation of

competitively neutral universal service support mechanisms; and (3)

credible and timely enforcement of pro-competitive rules. In the NPRM,

we sought comment on four options for a prescriptive approach:

reinitializing price cap indices (PCIs) to economic cost-based levels;

reinitializing PCIs to levels targeted to yield no more than an 11.25

percent rate of return, or some other rate of return; adding a policy-

based mechanism similar to the CPD to the X-Factor; or prescribing

economic cost-based rates. We have decided above to rely primarily on a

market-based approach, and impose prescriptive requirements only when

market forces are inadequate to ensure just and reasonable rates for

particular services or areas. We will determine the details of our

market-based approach in a future Order. In that Order, we will also

discuss in more detail what prescriptive requirements we will use as a

backstop to our market-based access charge reform. Because we are not

adopting the prescriptive approach at this time, we are removing the

collections associated with the prescriptive approach from our

statement. If the collections are adopted at a later date, we will

request that OMB reinstates them at that time. (No. of respondents: 13;

hour burden per respondent: 137,986 hours; total annual burden:

1,793,818). b. Cost Study of Local Switching Costs: The FCC does not

establish a fixed percentage of local switching costs that incumbent

LECs must reassign to the Common Line basket or newly created Trunk

Cards and Ports service category as NTS costs. In light of the widely

varying estimates in the record, we conclude that the portion of costs

that is NTS costs likely varies among LEC switches. Accordingly, we

require each price cap LEC to conduct a cost study to determine the

geographically-averaged portion of local switching costs that is

attributable to the line-side ports, as defined above, and to dedicated

trunk side cards and ports. These amounts, including cost support,

should be reflected in the access charge elements filed in the LEC's

access tariff effective January 1, 1998. (No. of respondents: 13; hours

per respondent: 400; total annual burden: 5200 hours). c. Cost Study of

Interstate Access Service That Remain Subject to Price Cap Regulation:

The 1996 Act has created an unprecedented opportunity for competition

to develop in local telephone markets. We recognize, however, that

competition is unlikely to develop at the same rate in different

locations, and that some services will be subject to increasing

competition more rapidly than others. We also recognize, however, that

there will be areas and services for which competition may not develop.

We will adopt a prescriptive ``backstop'' to our market-based approach

that will serve to ensure that all interstate access customers receive

the benefits of more efficient prices, even in those places and for

those services where competition does not develop quickly. To implement

our backstop to market-based access charge reform, we require each

incumbent price cap LEC to file a cost study no later than February 8,

2001, demonstrating the cost of providing those interstate access

services that remain subject to price cap regulation because they do

not face substantial competition. (No. of respondents: 13; hours per

respondent: 8; total annual burden: 104 hours). d. Tariff Filings: In

the First Report and Order, the Commission requires the filing of

various tariffs, with modifications. For example, the FCC directs

incumbent LECs to establish separate rate elements for the multiplexing

equipment on each side of the tandem switch. LECs must establish a

flat-rated charge for the multiplexers on the SWC side of the tandem,

imposed pro-rata on the purchasers of the dedicated trunks on the SWC

side of the tandem. Multiplexing equipment on the EO side of the tandem

shall be charged to users of common EO-to-tandem transport on a per-

minute-of-use basis. These multiplexer rate elements must be included

in the LEC access tariff filings to be effective January 1, 1998. In

the

[[Page 62610]]

Second Order on Reconsideration, the FCC clarifies that the TIC

exemption for access customers using competitive transport providers

only applies to that portion of the residual per-minute TIC that is

related to transport facilities, and directs incumbent local exchange

carriers to include, in their access tariff filing, the amount of per-

minute transport interconnection charge (TIC) they anticipate will be

allocated to facilities-based rate elements in the future. (No. of

respondents: 13; hours per respondent: 256 hours; total annual burden:

3328 hours). e. Third-Party Disclosure: In the Second Order on

Reconsideration, the Commission requires LECs to provide IXCs with

customer-specific information about how many and what type of

presubscribed interexchange carrier charges (PICCs) they are assessing

for each of the IXC's presubscribed customers. One of the primary goals

of our First Report and Order was to develop a cost-recovery mechanism

that permits carriers to recover their costs in a manner that reflects

the way in which those costs are incurred. Without access to

information that indicates whether the LEC is assessing a primary or

non-primary residential PICC, or about how many local business lines

are presubscribed to a particular IXC, the IXC will be unable to

develop rates that accurately reflect the underlying costs. (No. of

respondents: 14; hours per respondent: 160 hours; total annual burden:

2240 hours). Our authority to collect this information is provided

under 47 U.S.C. 201-205 and 303(r). The information collected under

these Orders would be submitted to the FCC by incumbent LECs for use in

determining whether the incumbent LECs should receive the regulatory

relief proposed in the Orders. The information collected under the

Second Order on Reconsideration and Memorandum Opinion and Order would

be submitted by the LECs to the interexchange carriers (IXCs) for use

in developing the most cost-efficient rates and rate structures.

Obligation to respond: mandatory.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0787.

Expiration Date: 10/31/2000.

Title: Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes

Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for profit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 4275 respondents; 2.34 hours per response

(avg.); 10,044 total annual burden hours for all collections.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Description: Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, makes it unlawful for

any telecommunications carrier to ``submit or execute a change in a

subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or

telephone toll service except in accordance with such verification

procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.'' The section further

provides that any telecommunications carrier that violates the

Commission's verification procedures and that collects charges for

telecommunications service from a subscriber must pay to the carrier

previously selected by the subscriber an amount equal to all charges

paid by the subscriber after the violation occurred. The Commission's

current rules pertaining to changes in subscriber carrier selections

are contained in Sections 64.1100 and 64.1150 of the Commission's

rules, 47 CFR Secs. 64.1100, 64.1150. These rules apply only to

interexchange carriers (IXCs). Section 64.1100 requires that IXCs

verify orders for long distance service generated by telemarketing, and

Section 64.1150 prescribes the proper content and form for letters of

agency (or, written authorization of subscriber carrier changes). The

proposed modifications and additions to the rules are necessary to

accommodate the Commission's expanded scope of authority to require all

telecommunication carriers to verify change orders for telephone

exchange and telephone toll service, and to provide that unauthorized

carriers forfeit to the subscriber's authorized carrier, all charges

collected as a result of their unlawful action. (Burden estimate for

proposed Section 64.1100 is as follows: No. of respondents: 675; hours

per respondent: 1.25; total annual burden: 844. Burden estimate for

proposed 64.1150 is as follows: No. of respondents: 1800; hours per

respondent: 2 hours; total annual burden: 3600 hours). Proposed Section

47 CFR Sec. 64.1160 mirrors Section 258 of the 1996 Act by providing

that no telecommunications carrier shall submit or execute a carrier

change except in accordance with the Commission's verification

procedures, and that a carrier that violates the verification

procedures shall be liable to the subscriber's properly authorized

carrier in an amount equal to all charges paid by the subscriber after

the violation occurs. Under proposed Section 47 CFR Section 64.1170, a

subscriber's properly authorized carrier must, within 10 days of

receiving notification that the subscriber's carrier selection was

changed without authorization, request from the unauthorized carrier

the amount of charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized

carrier, and the value of any premiums to which the subscriber would

have been entitled had the subscriber's carrier selection not been

changed. Upon notification that the subscriber's carrier selection was

changed without authorization, the unauthorized carrier must remit

these amounts to the subscriber's properly authorized carrier. The

subscriber's properly authorized carrier must, upon receiving the value

of lost premiums from the unauthorized carrier, restore any lost

premiums (or an equivalent premium or dollar amount where the premium

cannot be restored) to the subscriber. This section also provides that

carriers disputing liability under this section must pursue private

settlement negotiations prior to petitioning the Commission to resolve

any dispute regarding the transfer of charges and the value of lost

premiums from the unauthorized carrier to the properly authorized

carrier. (No. of respondents: 1800; hours per respondent: 3 hours;

total annual burden: 5400 hours). The information will be used to

promulgate regulations to implement Section 258 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, and to determine what additional

measures should be taken to deter unauthorized switching of

subscriber's carrier selections in light of the Act's new provisions.

Specifically, we are proposing to expand the scope of our current

verification rules to be applicable to all telecommunications carriers.

Also, new proposed Sections 64.1160 and 64.1170 are intended to ensure

that carriers that violate our verification rules do not retain any

revenue gained from their unlawful activity, and that subscribers

receive prompt and full reparation for harm suffered as a consequence

of unauthorized carrier changes. We also seek comment on whether the

verification rules should apply when carriers solicit preferred carrier

freezes; whether the ``welcome package'' described in Section

64.1100(d) continues to be a necessary and viable verification

alternative; whether we should exempt in-bound (or customer-initiated)

calls from the verification rules; what the liability among carriers

and subscribers should be; and whether to establish a ``bright-line''

evidentiary standard for determining whether a subscriber has relied on

a resale carrier's identity of its underlying facilities-based

[[Page 62611]]

network provider, hence requiring that the resale carrier notify the

subscriber if the underlying network provider is changed.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0106.

Expiration Date: 10/31/2000.

Title: Reports of Overseas Telecommunications Traffic--Section

43.61.

Form No.: FCC 43-61.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 248 respondents; 30.45 hours per response

(avg); 7,554 total annual burden hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $96,000.

Frequency of Response: Annually, semi-annually.

Description: The telecommunications traffic data report is an

annual reporting requirement imposed on common carriers engaged in the

provision of overseas telecommunications services. The reported data is

useful for international planning, facility authorization, monitoring

emerging developments in communications services, analyzing market

structures, tracking the balance of payments in international

communications services, and market analysis purposes. The reported

data enables the Commission to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.

In addition to the annual filing requirement, private line resellers

must report their U.S. outbound and inbound traffic originating or

terminating over resold U.S. private lines on a semi-annual basis. This

requirement applies for three years following a Commission finding that

a particular country offers U.S. carriers ``equivalent'' opportunities

for resale. The information is collected so that the Commission can

closely monitor the equivalency decision's impact on the amount of IMTS

traffic diverted from the settlements process. Sections 211, 214, 218,

219, 220 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, accord

the Commission broad authority to obtain information from common

carriers. Part 43 of the Commission's rules establishes the procedures

for filing periodic reports and certain other information, including

annual traffic and revenue reports. Obligation to respond: mandatory.

Public reporting burden for the collections of information is as

noted above. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other

aspect of the collections of information, including suggestions for

reducing the burden to Performance Evaluation and Records Management,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-30798 Filed 11-21-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P