[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31481-31489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15789]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96-128; FCC 96-254]


Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Commission to 
promulgate new rules governing the payphone industry. Section 276 of 
the 1996 Act directs the Commission, among other things, to ensure that 
all payphone owners are compensated for calls originated on their 
payphones, and to ``discontinue * * * all intrastate and interstate'' 
subsidies for payphones owned by incumbent local exchange carriers 
(``LECs''). In this NPRM, the Commission proposed rules that would 
accomplish the following objectives set forth by Congress in Section 
276: compensation for ``each and every completed intrastate and 
interstate call using [a] payphone[;]'' termination of all subsidies 
for LEC payphones, including ``access charge payphone service 
elements[;]'' prescription of nonstructural safeguards for Bell 
Operating Company (``BOC'') payphones; promulgation of rules permitting 
the BOCs to negotiate with the payphone location provider about a 
payphone's presubscribed interLATA carrier, unless the Commission finds 
that such negotiations are ``not in the public interest;'' promulgation 
of rules permitting all payphone providers to negotiate with the 
location provider about a payphone's presubscribed intraLATA carrier; 
and establishment of a class of public interest payphones to be located 
``where there would otherwise not be a payphone[.]'' The intended 
effect of this NPRM is to propose a rule implementing Section 276 of 
the Communications Act of 1996.

DATES: Written comments by the public on the Further NPRM of Proposed 
Rule Making and the proposed and/or modified information collections 
are due June 27, 1996. Reply comments are due on July 8, 1996. Written 
comments by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed 
and/or modified information collections on or before August 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of 
any comments on the information collections contained herein should be 
submitted to Dorothy Conway, 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 NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Carowitz, Enforcement 
Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-0960. For additional 
information concerning the information collections contained in this 
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making contact Dorothy Conway at 202-
418-0217, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making in CC Docket No. 96-128, adopted on June 4, 
1996 and released June 6, 1996. The full text of the Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making is available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, International 
Transcription Services, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, 
D.C. 20037 (202) 857-3800. This Notice of Proposed Rule Making contains 
proposed or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It has been submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 
3507(d) of 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 NPRM contains eight proposed or modified information 
collections. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') to comment on the

[[Page 31482]]

information collections contained in this NPRM, 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 NPRM; OMB 
notification of action is due August 19, 1996. 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.
    (1) OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Proposed Quarterly Report of Interexchange Carriers 
(``IXCs'') Listing the Number of Dial-Around Calls for Which 
Compensation is Being Paid to Payphone Owners.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small 
business.
    Number of Respondents: 275.
    Estimated Time Per Response: \1/2\ hour.
    Total Annual Burden: 550 hours.
    Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: IXCs who are responsible for paying per-call 
compensation to payphone providers must provide this report to the 
payphone providers. Without provision of this report, payphone 
providers would be unable to ascertain the compensation amount to be 
paid by the IXCs.

    (2) OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Proposed Annual Report of Interexchange Carriers (``IXCs'') 
Listing the Compensation Amount Paid to Payphone Providers and the 
Number of Payees.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small 
business.
    Number of Respondents: 275.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 2 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 550 hours.
    Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $5,000.
    Needs and Uses: IXCs who are responsible for paying per-call 
compensation to payphone providers are required to provide annual 
reports to the Common Carrier Bureau listing the amount of compensation 
paid to payphone providers and the number of payees. Without provision 
of this report, the Commission would be unable to ensure that all the 
IXCs are paying their respective compensation obligations. In addition, 
IXCs must initiate an annual independent verification of their per-call 
tracking functions.

    (3) OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Proposed Quarterly Report of IntraLATA Carriers Listing 
Payphone ANIs.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small 
business.
    Number of Respondents: 400.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 8 hours for initial report, 2 hours 
for subsequent reports.
    Total Annual Burden: 5600 hours for initial report, 3200 hours for 
subsequent reports.
    Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: IntraLATA carriers are required to provide to 
interexchange carriers (``IXCs'') a quarterly report listing payphone 
ANIs. Without provision of this report, resolution of disputed ANIs 
would be very difficult because IXCs would not be able to tell which 
ANIs belong to payphones and would not be able to ascertain which dial-
around calls were originated by payphones for compensation purposes.

    (4) OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Proposed One-Time Report of Local Exchange Companies 
(``LECs'') of Cost Accounting Studies.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small 
business.
    Number of Respondents: 400.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 50 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 20,000 hours.
    Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: LECs are required to provide to the Common Carrier 
Bureau, on a one-time basis, a report containing engineering studies, 
time and wage studies, and other cost accounting studies to identify 
the direct cost of central office coin services. Without provision of 
this report, the Commission would be unable to ascertain whether the 
LECs were charging their payphone competitors unreasonably high prices 
for central office coin services.

    (5) OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Proposed Initial Report of Bell Operating Companies 
(``BOCs'') of Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plans.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small 
business.
    Number of Respondents: 7.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 50 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 350 hours.
    Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: BOCs are required to provide to the Common Carrier 
Bureau initial Comparably Efficient Interconnection (``CEI'') plans 
describing how they intend to comply with the CEI equal access 
parameters. Thereafter, they may include this information in the CEI 
plans they already file with the Commission. Without the provision of 
these reports, the Commission would be unable to ascertain whether the 
BOCs were providing competing payphone providers with unbundled 
nondiscriminatory access to their network features and functionalities.

    (6) OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Proposed Report of Bell Operating Companies (``BOCs'') of 
Modified Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plans.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small 
business.
    Number of Respondents: 7.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 6 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 42 hours.
    Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: BOCs are required to provide to the Common Carrier 
Bureau initial Comparably Efficient Interconnection plans describing 
how they intend to comply with the CEI equal access parameters. 
Thereafter, they may include this information in the CEI plans they 
already file with the Commission. Without the provision of these 
reports, the Commission would be unable to ascertain whether the BOCs 
were providing competing payphone providers with unbundled 
nondiscriminatory access to their network features and functionalities.

    (7) OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Proposed Annual Filing of Nondiscrimination Reports (on 
quality of service, installation and maintenance) by Bell Operating 
Companies (``BOCs'').
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small 
business.
    Number of Respondents: 7.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 50 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 350 hours.
    Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: BOCs are required to provide to the Common Carrier 
Bureau nondiscrimination reports on an annual basis. Without the 
provision of these reports, the Commission would be unable to ascertain 
whether the BOCs were providing competing payphone providers with equal 
access to all the basic underlying network services that are provided 
to its own payphones.


[[Page 31483]]


    (8) OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Proposed Public Disclosure of Network Information by Bell 
Operating Companies (``BOCs'').
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small 
business.
    Number of Respondents: 7.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 50 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 350 hours. Report would be issued 
periodically, when new network services are developed or network 
changes made.
    Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: BOCs are required to publicly disclose changes in 
their networks or new network services at two different points in time. 
First, disclosure would occur at the ``make/buy'' point: when a BOC 
decides to make for itself, or procure from an unaffiliated entity, any 
product whose design affects or relies on the network interface. 
Second, a BOC would publicly disclose technical information about a new 
service 12 months before it is introduced. If the BOC could introduce 
the service within 12 months of the make/buy point, it would make a 
public disclosure at the make/buy point. In no event, however, would 
the public disclosure occur less than six months before the 
introduction of the service. Without provision of these reports, the 
industry would be unable to ascertain whether the BOCs were designing 
new network services or changing network technical specifications to 
the advantage of their own payphones.

SUMMARY OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

I. Background

    1. Section 276(b)(1)(A) directs the Commission to establish a 
compensation mechanism to ensure ``that all payphone service providers 
are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and 
interstate call'' from their payphones. Section 276(b)(1)(B) mandates 
that the Commission ``discontinue the intrastate and interstate carrier 
access charge payphone service elements and payments * * * and all 
intrastate and interstate subsidies from basic exchange and exchange 
access revenues.'' In addition, Section 276(b)(1)(D) directs the 
Commission to consider whether BOCs should be permitted to be involved 
with the location provider's selection of the payphone's presubscribed 
carrier. Together with the other subsections of Section 276, these 
three provisions help to establish regulatory parity for all payphone 
service providers (``PSPs''), whether competitive payphone owners or 
incumbent LECs (both independents and BOCs).

II. Discussion

A. Compensation for Each and Every Completed Intrastate and Interstate 
Call Originated by Payphones

a. Scope of Payphone Calls Covered by this Rulemaking
    2. Currently, most calls originated on payphones are within one of 
the following categories: (1) coin calls; (2) directory assistance 
calls; (3) operator service (``0+'' and ``0-'') calls; (4) access code 
calls (using e.g., ``10XXX'' codes and ``1-800'' or ``950'' carrier 
access numbers); and (5) subscriber 800 calls. Each of these categories 
can be further subdivided between local, intraLATA toll, intrastate 
interLATA, interstate interLATA and international. Each type of call is 
a potential source of revenue for the payphone owner, whether the 
revenue is derived from coins deposited into the payphone, through 
commission payments on operator service calls, or from compensation 
mandated by the FCC or the states.
    3. The 1996 Act requires the Commission to ensure that PSPs are 
fairly compensated for all calls originated by their payphones. In 
light of the multiple sources of revenue for payphones, the Commission 
seeks comment on what constitutes ``fair'' compensation and how we 
should ``ensure'' that each PSP receives it for calls for originated by 
its payphones. The Commission concludes that its mandate under Section 
276(b)(1)(A) is to ensure that PSPs are ``fairly compensated'' for 
``each and every completed intrastate and interstate call'' regardless 
of whether the PSP currently receives compensation for the particular 
call originated by its payphone. The Commission tentatively concludes, 
however, that it should use this mandate to prescribe compensation only 
when payphone providers are not already ``fairly compensated.'' 
Currently, PPOs and non-BOC LECs receive compensation, pursuant to 
individual contracts, from the payphone's presubscribed IXC for all 
``0+'' calls. IXCs have long competed for this type of business. 
Therefore, the Commission tentatively concludes that it need not 
prescribe per-call compensation for 0+ calls because competition in 
this area ensures ``fair'' compensation for PSPs. It seeks comment on 
these tentative conclusions.
    4. The 1996 Act does not expressly state that compensation should 
extend to international calls. The Commission finds no evidence, 
however, of congressional intent to leave these calls uncompensated. 
Therefore, despite the lack of reference to international calls in 
Section 276(b)(1)(A), the Commission tentatively concludes that it 
should exercise its general jurisdiction under Sections 4(i) and 201(b) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to ensure that PSPs are 
compensated for international as well as interstate and intrastate 
calls originating from their payphones in the United States. The 
Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
    5. The rate for the most common type of call, the local coin call, 
is set by state commissions. Typically, the rate set for local coin 
services provided by the incumbent LECs also applies to the PPOs. 
Section 276 of the Act requires the Commission to ensure that the 
payphone provider receives fair compensation for each interstate and 
intrastate call, including local coin sent-paid calls. Section 276 also 
expressly preempts state regulations that are inconsistent with the 
Commission's regulations. The Commission seeks comment, however, on how 
it should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 276. The Commission 
notes that it had a range of options for ensuring fair compensation for 
these calls, and it sought comment on which option will ensure fair 
compensation for PSPs with respect to local coin sent-paid calls.
    6. More specifically, one option would be to set a nationwide local 
coin rate for all calls originated by payphones. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should take such action and request 
that commenters identify the specific public interest benefits they 
believe would result from a nationwide rate, why local rates are 
inadequate to ensure fair compensation, the impacts of variations among 
the states in the local coin sent-paid rate on PSPs and the public, and 
whether those impacts are predominantly local, statewide, regional or 
national. Another option would be for the Commission to prescribe 
specific national guidelines that states would use to establish a local 
rate that would ensure that all PSPs are fairly compensated. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should take such 
action and request that commenters identify specific public interest 
benefits they believe would result from the Commission prescribing such 
guidelines, what factors such guidelines should consider, how the 
guidelines would ensure fair compensation for local coin calls, the 
impacts of variations among the states

[[Page 31484]]

in local coin rates, and whether those impacts are predominantly local, 
statewide, regional or national.
    7. A third option for ensuring fair compensation for PSPs would be 
for the states, in the first instance, to continue to set the coin 
rates for local payphone calls according to factors within their 
discretion. The Commission has long recognized the interest of the 
states in setting end-user rates for local calls, including rates for 
411 calls. Indeed, as discussed above, the states have long had a 
traditional and primary role in regulating payphones. However, because 
Section 276 of the 1996 Act requires the Commission to ensure that PSPs 
are fairly compensated for ``each and every completed intrastate and 
interstate call,'' the Commission seeks comment on what further 
procedures, such as a complaint or petition process, it should 
establish, should it ultimately determine to defer to the states in 
setting payphone rates. The Commission also seeks comment on what 
standards it could use to adjudicate any complaints or petitions that 
challenge a particular rate. It further ask whether the states' setting 
of the rates for local coin calls subject to complaint or petition 
would be consistent with Section 276's mandate that the Commission 
ensure fair compensation for ``each and every completed intrastate and 
interstate call.'' The Commission sought comment on whether the 
Commission should take such action and request that commenters identify 
specific public interest benefits they believe would result from having 
coin rates for local payphone calls set by the states.
b. Entities Required To Pay Compensation
    8. Because the 1996 Act directs the Commission to ensure that all 
PSPs are compensated, with limited exception, for ``each and every 
intrastate and interstate call'' using their payphones, the Commission 
also addresses who pays that compensation. The possible payors include: 
the caller using the payphone; the carrier over whose network the call 
is placed; or, in the case of subscriber 800 calls, the entity being 
called (who may or may not directly pass all the charges on to the 
caller using the payphone). Industry participants have made two 
compensation proposals that might satisfy the per-call compensation 
requirement.
    9. The first proposal builds on the per-call compensation mechanism 
proposed for interstate access code calls in CC Docket No. 91-35. If 
this ``carrier-pays'' mechanism were extended to all dial-around calls, 
the IXC who receives such a call from a payphone would be required to 
pay a per-call charge to the provider of the payphone. Each IXC would 
decide independently how to recover this cost.
    10. Another approach would be to rely on a ``set use fee.'' The 
``set use fee'' is a fee that the IXC would bill and collect from the 
end user. The fee would then be remitted to the PSP. In the case of the 
subscriber 800 and other toll-free number calls, the set use fee could 
be collected from the subscriber. For access code calls and operator-
assisted calls, the set use fee would be collected from the end user 
that is billed for the call.
    11. The Commission tentatively concludes that, for non-coin 
payphone calls, either a ``carrier-pays'' system or a ``set use fee'' 
system where the end user pays would satisfy the requirements of the 
1996 Act. As a general principle, however, the Commission tends to 
favor an approach that minimizes transaction costs on the caller and on 
the industry. The Commission finds that the carrier-pays mechanism is 
preferable because it would result in less transaction costs because 
the IXC could aggregate its payments to payphone providers. Under a 
set-use fee, these payments would be spread among a vast number of 
payphone callers through their individual telephone bills. Therefore, 
the Commission tentatively concludes that it should adopt a ``carrier-
pays'' compensation mechanism that builds on existing procedures. It 
seeks comment on these tentative conclusions.
c. Ability of Carriers To Track Calls From Payphones
    12. Based on prior FCC proceedings, the Commission tentatively 
concludes that tracking mechanisms and surrogates exist, or might 
readily be made available, to support the complete per-call 
compensation plan mandated by Section 276(b)(1)(A). It seeks comment on 
what tracking options are currently, or may soon be, available. The 
Commission seeks further comment on the ability of existing IXC-based 
tracking mechanisms to accommodate all payphone providers and IXCs. In 
the event that there is no standard technology or mechanism available 
for tracking, the Commission seeks comment on alternative surrogate 
methodologies that could be devised and by whom. Finally, it seeks 
comment on which party or parties, whether IXCs, PSPs, or intraLATA 
carriers, should be required to develop and maintain the tracking or 
surrogate methodologies.
d. Administration of Per-Call Compensation
    13. The Commission tentatively concludes that the direct-billing 
arrangement established in previous Commission orders should be 
maintained with the simple addition of requiring IXCs, and the 
intrastate interexchange operations of LECs to send back to each PSP a 
statement indicating the number of toll-free and access code calls that 
each carrier has received from each of that PSP's payphones. The 
Commission proposes to continue to leave the details of the billing 
arrangements for the parties to determine. All parties, whether 
carriers or PSPs, would be free to retain the services of one or more 
clearinghouses to assist them with billing and collection and/or 
payment of the compensation. The Commission would require, however, 
that the carrier responsible for paying compensation file each year a 
brief report with the Common Carrier Bureau listing the total amount of 
compensation paid, pursuant to the rules adopted in this proceeding, to 
PSPs for intrastate, interstate, and international calls; the number of 
compensable calls received by the carrier; and the number of payees.
e. Per-Call Compensation Amount
    14. The Commission previously examined various compensation methods 
in the Second Report and Order. The Commission notes that the theory of 
compensation and price surrogates that the Commission has historically 
relied upon in its determination of the ``range of reasonable 
compensation rates'' provides some guidance for our analysis of how to 
ensure that PSPs are ``fairly compensated'' and what should be the 
appropriate per-call compensation amount for all calls within the scope 
of this rulemaking. As before, while the Commission noted that it was 
confronted in the proceeding by the lack of reliable PPO cost data, it 
tentatively concludes that PSPs should be compensated for their costs 
in originating the types of calls for which it has tentatively 
concludes that compensation is appropriate. It tentatively concludes 
further that these costs should be measured by appropriate cost-based 
surrogates. It seeks comment on these tentative conclusions. The 
Commission also questions whether, to ensure that PSPs receive fair 
compensation, it should prescribe different per-call compensation 
amounts for the different types of calls originated by payphones. It 
seeks further comment on how

[[Page 31485]]

compensation levels should be permitted to change in the future, and 
whether some cost index or price cap system would be appropriate to 
ensure that compensation levels reflect expected changes in unit costs 
over time. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should 
provide PPOs some measure of interim compensation, to be paid until the 
effective date of the final rules we adopt in this proceeding, for the 
growing volume of dial-around calls originated from their payphones.

B. Reclassification of Incumbent LEC-Owned Payphones

a. Classification of LEC Payphones as CPE
    15. To effectuate the Act's mandate that access charge payphone 
service elements and payphone subsidies be discontinued, the Commission 
tentatively concludes that it should treat incumbent LEC payphones as 
unregulated, detariffed CPE. It tentatively concludes further that 
incumbent LECs should be required to provide to PSPs, on a 
nondiscriminatory tariffed basis, all functionalities used in a LEC's 
delivery of payphone services.
    16. The option of using central office coin services, such as coin 
recognition, answer detection, and other related services, allows 
incumbent LECs to use the less expensive ``dumb'' pay telephones, which 
gives incumbent LECs a cost advantage over their competitors. The 
Commission tentatively concludes that requiring that central office 
coin services be made available to PPOs eliminates this cost advantage 
and will increase competition in the payphone industry. To unbundle 
payphones from their underlying transmission, the Commission 
tentatively concludes that incumbent LECs, whether or not they 
themselves provide payphone service, must offer individual central 
office coin transmission services to PSPs under a nondiscriminatory, 
public, tariffed offering. It seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion and on which central office coin services must be made 
available by incumbent LECs to the PSPs to achieve this goal. In the 
interest of clarity, it seeks comment on both the type of services and 
the technological requirements necessary to allow PPOs to use payphones 
that are equivalent to those payphones currently used by LECs. The 
Commission also tentatively concludes that Section 68.2(a)(1) of the 
FCC's regulations should be amended to facilitate registration of both 
instrument implemented and central-office-implemented payphones. It 
seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
b. Transfer of Payphone Equipment to Unregulated Status
    17. If the Commission concludes that it will treat payphones as 
detariffed CPE, the incumbent LECs would have to transfer their 
payphones and related equipment from regulated to unregulated 
activities. FCC rules provide that, if reallocations of 
telecommunications plant (i.e., central office equipment and outside 
plant) from regulated to nonregulated operations are required, such 
plant will be transferred at undepreciated baseline cost plus an 
interest charge based on the authorized interstate rate of return to 
reflect the time value of money. The Commission seeks comment on the 
specific assets to be transferred. It tentatively concludes that the 
assets to be transferred should be defined generally in terms of CPE 
deregulation. Thus, the assets to be transferred may include all 
facilities related to payphone service, including associated taxes and 
depreciation, but likely would not include the loops connecting the 
payphones to the network, or the central office ``coin-service'' or 
operator service facilities supporting incumbent LEC payphones. 
Including these network support facilities may be inappropriate because 
it would allow incumbent LECs to continue providing a different form of 
interconnection to their payphones than is available to PSPs. The 
Commission also tentatively concludes that a phase-in period for a 
transfer of payphone-related assets is not necessary, because payphone 
terminal equipment consists of less than one percent of total plant 
investment for the entire LEC industry. The Commission seeks comment on 
our tentative conclusions and the general approach to asset transfers 
outlined here.
c. Termination of Access Charge Compensation and Other Subsidies
    18. Incumbent LECs today generally recover payphone costs allocated 
to the interstate jurisdiction through the per-minute carrier common 
line (``CCL'') charge they assess on IXCs and other interstate access 
customers for originating and terminating interstate calls. The 
incumbent LEC assesses the PPO a subscriber line charge (``SLC'') (at 
the multi-line business rate) to recover the payphone common line costs 
associated with that phone. In the case of competitive payphones, a PPO 
recovers its payphone costs out of the revenue it receives from end 
users, premises owners, and OSPs to whom its payphones are 
presubscribed.
    19. The 1996 Act mandates that the Commission ``discontinue the 
intrastate and interstate carrier access charge payphone service 
elements and payments * * * and all intrastate and interstate subsidies 
from basic exchange and exchange access revenues[.]'' Accordingly, the 
Commission must adopt rules that provide for the removal from regulated 
intrastate and interstate rate structures of all charges that recover 
the costs of payphones (i.e., the costs of payphone sets, not including 
the costs of the lines connecting those sets to the public switched 
network, which, like the lines connecting competitive payphones to the 
network, will continue to be treated as regulated). It tentatively 
concludes that incumbent LECs must reduce their interstate CCL charges 
by an amount equal to the interstate allocation of payphone costs 
currently recovered through those charges. LECs subject to the price 
cap rules would treat this as an exogenous cost change to the Common 
Line basket pursuant to Section 61.44(c) of our rules. The Commission 
requests incumbent LECs to identify in their comments all accounts that 
contain costs attributable to their payphone operations. The Commission 
also requests comment on whether specific cost pools and allocators 
should be used to capture the nonregulated investment and expenses 
associated with their payphone operations. It seeks further comment on 
whether a transition period is necessary to move from subsidized 
compensation to per-call compensation for LEC payphones, and how that 
transition would proceed.
    20. The Commission also proposes, pursuant to the mandate of 
Section 276(b)(1)(B), to require incumbent LECs to remove from their 
intrastate rates any charges that recover the costs of payphones. The 
Commission solicits comment on whether it should set a deadline and a 
specific mechanism for elimination of any intrastate subsidies as well, 
or whether it would be both consistent with the statute as well as 
preferable from a policy perspective to permit the states to formulate 
their own mechanisms for achieving this result within a specific time 
frame.
    21. In the telephone network, payphones, as well as all other 
telephones, are connected to the local switch by means of a subscriber 
line. The costs of the subscriber line that are allocated to the 
interstate jurisdiction are recovered through two separate charges: a 
flat-rate SLC assessed upon the end user customer who subscribes to 
local service; and a per-minute CCL charge that recovers the balance of 
the interstate subscriber line costs not

[[Page 31486]]

recovered through the SLC. LEC payphone costs are also included in the 
CCL charge. The CCL charge, however, applies to interstate switched 
access service that is unrelated to payphone service costs. While PPOs 
are required to pay the SLC for the loop used by each of their 
payphones, LECs have not been required to pay this charge because the 
subscriber lines connected to LEC payphones have been recovered 
entirely through the CCL charge. The Commission tentatively concludes 
that, to avoid discrimination among payphone providers, the SLC should 
apply to subscriber lines that terminate at both LEC and competitive 
payphones. It tentatively concludes that the removal of payphone costs 
from the CCL and the payment or imputation of a SLC to the subscriber 
line that terminates at a LEC nonregulated payphone would result in the 
recovery of LEC payphone costs on a more cost-causative basis. The 
Commission seeks comment on these tentative conclusions and, more 
generally, on how removing LEC payphones from the CCL charge would 
affect the SLC.
    22. The incumbent LECs' multi-line business SLC is currently 
subject to a $6.00 per month cap. Those LECs with interstate subscriber 
line costs that exceed this amount recover a portion of the interstate 
costs of subscriber lines through the CCL charge. The issue of the 
appropriate interstate SLC for the future has been referred to a 
Federal-State Joint Board. To the extent that LECs charge or impute to 
their own payphone operations only the multi-line business SLC, which 
may be less than the full interstate cost of the subscriber lines 
connecting their payphones to the network, and recover the balance of 
the cost of these lines through the CCL charge, they may, in effect, be 
subsidizing their payphones with access charge revenues, in violation 
of Section 276. The Commission seeks comment on whether LECs in those 
circumstances should charge or impute to their own payphone operations, 
as well as to PPOs, an additional monthly charge representing the 
difference between the SLC cap and the full interstate cost of these 
subscriber lines. It also seeks comment on whether comparable changes 
should be made to incumbent LECs' intrastate rates.
d. Deregulation of AT&T Payphones
    23. In the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace proceeding, the 
Commission notes that it would consider in the instant proceeding ``the 
issue of bundling pay telephone equipment with the underlying 
transmission capacity.'' The Commission tentatively concludes that 
other IXC bundling issues should be treated under the same rules we 
have proposed in the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace proceeding. 
Commenters who disagree with this tentative conclusion, however, are 
invited to comment in the proceeding.
    24. Like LEC payphones, AT&T payphones are classified as network 
equipment and, therefore, may receive subsidies. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that payphones provided by AT&T should be 
classified as CPE. While the 1996 Act does not expressly address AT&T 
payphones, Section 276 directs the Commission to adopt regulations that 
will ``promote competition among payphone service providers and promote 
the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the 
general public[.]'' Discontinuing possible subsidies for AT&T payphones 
would be congruent with the 1996 Act's requirement that the Commission 
discontinue subsidies for other payphones (i.e., those owned by 
incumbent LECs) and would provide for symmetrical regulation of the 
payphone industry. There are other reasons why this proposed action is 
in harmony with the other rules the Commission has proposed in its 
proceeding. First, since Tonka, AT&T payphones have been treated the 
same as BOC payphones. Once LEC telephones, including those provided by 
the BOCs, are declared to be CPE, the basis for treating AT&T payphones 
as network equipment no longer exists. Second, the Commission believes 
that deregulating AT&T payphones is in line with its general policy to 
deregulate non-dominant carriers. It seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion.

C. Nonstructural Safeguards for BOC Provision of Payphone Service

    25. The Computer III nonstructural safeguards currently apply to a 
BOC's provision of payphone service if enhanced services are provided 
through the payphone. Under the Computer III framework, BOCs are 
permitted to provide enhanced services on an integrated basis subject 
to nondiscrimination safeguards. The safeguards the Commission adopted 
in Computer III include: (1) nondiscriminatory access to network 
features and functionalities; (2) restrictions on the use of Customer 
Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''); (3) network information 
disclosure rules; (4) nondiscrimination in the provision, installation, 
and maintenance of services as well as nondiscrimination reporting 
requirements; and (5) cost accounting safeguards. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that all Computer III nonstructural safeguards 
must be applied to meet our obligation under the 1996 Act. It seeks 
comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on whether 
there are other nonstructural safeguards that, while not explicitly 
specified in the Computer III, should be applied to BOC payphones.
    26. Currently, the Commission regulates BOC provision of enhanced 
services through Comparably Efficient Interconnection (``CEI'') and 
Open Network Architecture (``ONA'') requirements that require unbundled 
nondiscriminatory access to BOC network features and functionalities. 
Pursuant to these requirements, BOCs must file a service-specific CEI 
plan before offering any enhanced service on an integrated basis. A BOC 
must demonstrate in its CEI plan how it would provide competing 
enhanced service providers (ESPs) with ``equal access'' to all basic 
underlying network services the BOC used to provide its own enhanced 
services. Subsequently, the Commission required BOCs to develop and 
implement ONA plans detailing more fundamental unbundling of their 
basic network services. ONA requires further unbundling of network 
elements than under CEI because it is not limited to those elements 
associated with specific BOC enhanced services. In 1993, the Common 
Carrier Bureau lifted structural separation requirements after each BOC 
demonstrated that its ONA plan complied with the BOC Safeguards Order. 
Following the California III court decision, the Commission has 
continued to require BOCs to file CEI plans for each individual 
enhanced service it offers in addition to fulfilling the access 
requirements of its ONA plan.
b. BOC CEI Plans
    27. To ensure BOC compliance with the Computer III and ONA 
requirements, we propose to require that each BOC file, within 90 days 
of the effective date of the order in this proceeding, an initial CEI 
plan describing how it intends to comply with the CEI equal access 
parameters and nonstructural safeguards for the provision of payphone 
services. Thereafter, the BOCs may integrate the filing of information 
on payphone services unbundling and nonstructural safeguards with their 
ongoing ONA filings. Generally, in a CEI plan, a BOC must describe how 
it intends to comply with the CEI ``equal access'' parameters for the 
specific payphone service it intends to offer. The CEI equal access 
parameters include: interface functionality; unbundling of basic

[[Page 31487]]

services; resale; technical characteristics; installation, maintenance, 
and repair; end user access; CEI availability; minimization of 
transport costs; and availability to all interested customers or 
enhanced service providers. Because the 1996 Act requires that we apply 
safeguards that are equal to those set forth in Computer III ``at a 
minimum,'' the Commission seeks comment on any other parameters or 
requirements for BOC payphone service that, while not listed in this 
NPRM, are consistent with the intent of the 1996 Act.

D. Ability of BOCs To Negotiate With Location Providers on the 
Presubscribed Interlata Carrier

    28. While the location provider selects the OSP for BOC and GTE 
payphones, all other payphone providers are able to select the OSP 
serving their payphones. As discussed above, payphone providers, both 
PPOs and independent LECs, compete in the market for payphone services 
by offering the location provider a commission on coin and 0+ traffic 
originating from the payphones located on the location provider's 
premises. In turn, payphone providers earn revenue by reselling local 
and 1+ long distance service and by contracting for 0+ traffic with 
OSPs that pay commissions on 0+ traffic. The legislation directs the 
Commission to provide similar rights to BOCs, unless the Commission 
determines that it is not in the public interest.
    29. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which extending 
to the BOCs the same rights that all other payphone providers have to 
select and contract with the interLATA carriers that carry interLATA 
traffic from their payphones would be ``not in the public interest.'' 
The Commission questions whether these rights will benefit the general 
public by increasing competition, available services, and overall 
efficiency. It also asks whether carrier-selection rights will help to 
foster increased competition and market parity that will ``promote the 
widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the 
general public.'' Parties commenting on this issue should also address 
how any Commission action with respect to a BOC's right to select and 
contract with interLATA carriers would be consistent with the other 
goals enunciated in Section 276, such as promoting regulatory parity 
between BOCs and independent payphone providers, and that the location 
provider has the ultimate decision-making authority in determining 
interLATA services in connection with the choice of payphone providers.
    30. The Commission seeks comment on whether the ability to select 
the interLATA carrier serving their payphones is likely to permit the 
BOCs to behave anticompetitively in the payphone market in the absence 
of safeguards to prevent cost misallocations and discrimination. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the structural and 
accounting safeguards mandated under Sections 271 and 272 of the 1996 
Act, and any Commission rules implementing these safeguards, are 
sufficient to prevent anticompetitive abuses. If not, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt rules to prevent 
BOCs from giving more favorable interLATA rates to their own payphone 
operations than to their payphone competitors. Parties are asked to 
specify what safeguards would be necessary to prevent potential 
anticompetitive behavior by the BOCs in this regard. The Commission 
also seeks comment on to what extent a BOC not authorized to provide 
in-region interLATA service under Section 271 of the 1996 Act should be 
allowed to participate in the selection of the interLATA carrier, 
especially if the BOC has a non-attributable interest in the interLATA 
carrier, such as an option to purchase or an agreement to merge.

E. Ability of Payphone Service Providers To Negotiate With Location 
Providers on the Presubscribed Intralata Carrier

    31. Currently, in some states, competitive payphones are required 
to route intraLATA 0+ and 0- calls, and sometimes other intraLATA 
calls, to the incumbent LEC. In contrast, Section 276(b)(1)(E) requires 
the Commission to prescribe regulations to allow PSPs to negotiate with 
the location provider on the selecting and contracting with the 
intraLATA carrier serving the payphone. In accordance with this 
requirement, the Commission tentatively concludes that all PSPs, 
whether LECs or PPOs, should be given this right to negotiate with 
location providers concerning the intraLATA carrier. The Commission 
seeks comment on these tentative conclusions.

F. Establishment of Public Interest Payphones

    32. Because Section 276(b)(2) directs the Commission to ``determine 
whether public interest payphones * * * should be maintained,'' the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it would be in the public interest 
to maintain payphones provided in the interest of public health, 
safety, and welfare, in locations where there would otherwise not be a 
payphone.''
    33. If the Commission determines that public interest payphones 
should be maintained, then Section 276(b)(2) gives the Commission 
statutory authority to determine further how public interest payphones 
should be regulated. As with our jurisdiction over local call rates, 
the Commission seeks comment on a range of options for maintaining 
public interest payphones. One option would be for the Commission to 
prescribe federal regulations for the maintenance of these payphones. 
It seeks comment on whether and how this approach would serve the 
public interest, and on whether Section 276 requires the Commission to 
assume this responsibility.
    34. A second option would be for the Commission to establish 
national guidelines for public interest payphones. It seeks comment on 
whether there are any state initiatives or programs concerning public 
interest payphones that the Commission could use as a model for 
national guidelines. Commenters supporting national guidelines should 
specify what factors the guidelines should consider and how the 
guidelines should be applied on a nationwide basis.
    35. In the event that the Commission establishes national 
guidelines for public interest payphones, it seeks comment on what is 
to be considered a ``public interest payphone.'' The Joint Explanatory 
Statement for Section 276 clarifies that the term ``public interest 
payphones'' refers to payphones where payphone service would not 
otherwise be available as a result of the operation of the market. 
``Thus, the term does not apply to a payphone located near other 
payphones, or to a payphone that, even though unprofitable by itself, 
is provided for a location provider with whom the payphone provider has 
a contract.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether a ``public 
interest payphone'' should be defined as a payphone: (1) that operates 
at a financial loss, but also fulfills some public policy objective, 
such as emergency access; and (2) even though unprofitable by itself, 
is not provided for a location provider with whom the PSP has a 
contract. Under this definition, many payphones that fulfill important 
public policy objectives would not be included because they would be 
paid for, in the form of lower commission payments, by the entity that 
is requesting that a payphone be placed in a particular location to 
fulfill a public policy objective. This proposed definition would not 
necessarily

[[Page 31488]]

decrease the number of payphones in existence fulfilling public policy 
objectives, but would require the entities that most directly benefit 
from these low profitability payphones to assume the cost of their 
availability. The Commission seeks comment generally on this possible 
definition. Parties may specify whether the definition should be 
narrower, broader, or more specific.
    36. A third option for maintaining public interest payphones would 
be to defer to the states to determine, pursuant to their own statutes 
and regulations, which payphones should be treated as ``public interest 
payphones.'' This approach would treat the provision of ``public 
interest payphones'' as primarily a matter of state concern. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether it would be consistent with the 
statute and better serve the public interest to allow the states to 
develop their own guidelines regarding which payphones are ``public 
interest payphones.''
    37. With regard to a funding mechanism to support public interest 
payphones ``fairly and equitably,'' the Commission seeks comment on 
whether such a mechanism should be handled in conjunction with how 
public interest payphones are maintained, whether through federal 
regulations, federal guidelines for the states, or by the states 
themselves. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
it would it serve the public interest for the Commission and the states 
to administer different portions of a public interest payphone program. 
Commenters that support a Commission-mandated funding mechanism should 
detail how the mechanism would function, including who would be 
eligible to receive funding, who would be responsible for paying into 
the fund, and who would administer the funding mechanism.

G. Other Issues

1. Dialing Parity
    38. Section 251(b)(3) states that all LECs have the duty to 
``provide dialing parity to competing providers of telephone exchange 
service and telephone toll service.'' The Commission tentatively 
concludes that the benefits of dialing parity requirements that it 
adopts pursuant to Section 251(b)(3) of the Act should extend to all 
payphone location providers. It seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion and on other methods for achieving dialing parity for 
payphone location providers, and users, of payphones that are 
consistent with the definition of dialing parity under Section 3(15) of 
the 1934 Act, as amended. As a related matter, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should extend the type of intraLATA 
carrier unblocking requirements established in TOCSIA to all local and 
long distance calls.
2. Letterless Keypads
    39. At least two distributors of payphone equipment have been 
promoting letterless keypads. Such keypads defeat callers' attempts to 
reach their OSP of choice through a ``vanity'' access number, such as 
MCI's ``1-800-COLLECT'' or AT&T's ``1-800-CALL-ATT'' and ``10ATT,'' 
that can be easily remembered by callers. Standard payphone keypads 
contain certain letters of the alphabet that correspond to each digit 
(e.g., A, B, and C correspond to the digit ``2''). A ``letterless'' 
keypad does not include any letters associated with the requisite 
digits. The Commission expressed concern that use of letterless keypads 
may frustrate the intent of Congress, as expressed in TOCSIA, to permit 
callers to reach the OSP of their choice from payphones. In addition, 
the Commission is concerned that these keypads ultimately frustrates 
congressional intent, as expressed in the 1996 Act, ``to promote 
competition among payphone service providers and promote the widespread 
deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general 
public[.]''
    40. To promote consumer access to OSPs, TOCSIA required the 
unblocking of 800 and 950 access numbers at aggregator locations and 
directed the Commission to mandate the unblocking of 10XXX access codes 
and/or the establishment of 800/950 access numbers by each OSP. In the 
succeeding years, some OSPs have chosen to use ``vanity'' dialing 
sequences for access numbers. While the Commission has previously found 
that it does not have conclusive data showing a net change in the 
average number of access code calls (both 10XXX and 800/950 access 
calls) originated by each competitive payphone each month, payphone 
industry representatives have argued that use of ``vanity'' dialing 
sequences by payphone users has grown since their introduction.
    41. The Commission staff has reviewed advertisements for letterless 
keypads that specifically refer to a ``by-pass keypad'' that ``prevents 
dial around [calls].'' The Commission tentatively concludes that the 
use of letterless keypads violates both TOCSIA and the 1996 Act by 
preventing callers from accessing their OSP of choice. It seeks comment 
on how the Commission should take action to prohibit use of these ``by-
pass'' letterless keypads to restrict the availability of ``vanity'' 
access numbers.
3. Other Pending Payphone Proceedings
    42. Several proceedings pending before the Commission concern the 
rules governing the payphone industry. The Commission tentatively 
concludes that it would further the public interest to consolidate and 
address those proceedings within this rulemaking. The pending 
proceedings are as follows: (1) Petition of the Public Telephone 
Council to Treat BOC Payphones as CPE, DA 88-2055; (2) Policies and 
Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone 
Compensation, CC Docket. No. 91-35 (payphone compensation issues only); 
(3) Petition of Oncor Communications, Inc. Requesting Compensation for 
Competitive Payphone Premises Owners and Presubscribed Operator 
Services Providers, DA 95-1921; and (4) Amendment of Section 69.2 (m) 
and (ee) of the Commission's Rules to Include Independent Public 
Payphones Within the ``Public Telephone'' Exemption from End User 
Common Line Access Charges, RM 8723. Each of these proceedings 
addresses issues covered by Section 276 of the Act. We seek comment on 
the implications of our tentative conclusion. Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on which proceedings on the list commenters 
believe may be resolved here, and reasons for such opinions, and which 
proceedings should continue separately from this rulemaking, and the 
reasons for those opinions. The Commission also concludes in the NPRM 
that the Commission need not address the Florida Payphone remand in a 
separate proceeding because the rules adopted in the proceeding will 
address the remand by ensuring that PSPs are compensated, pursuant to 
the 1996 Act, for all intrastate and interstate calls, including 
subscriber 800 calls.

III. Comments and Ex Parte Presentations

    43. All interested may file comments on the issues set forth in 
this NPRM, on which comment is specifically sought, by June 27, 1996, 
and reply comments by July 8, 1996. All relevant and timely comments 
will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in 
this proceeding. To file formally in this proceeding, which involves 
issues concerning the Commission's expedited implementation of the 1996 
Act, participants must file an original, ten copies, and the electronic 
version on disk of all comments and reply comments. Comments and reply 
comments should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal

[[Page 31489]]

Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. If participants want 
each Commissioner to have a personal copy of their comments, an 
original plus fourteen copies must be filed. In addition, participants 
should submit two additional copies directly to the Common Carrier 
Bureau, Enforcement Division, Room 6008, 2025 M Street NW., Washington, 
D.C. 20554. The petition, comments, and reply comments will be 
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
Dockets Reference Room (Room 230) of the Federal Communications 
Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554. Copies of the 
petition and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may be 
obtained from ITS, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 
20037, (202) 857-3800.
    44. To facilitate review of comments and replies, both by parties 
and by Commission staff, the Commission requires that comments be no 
longer than seventy-five (75) pages and replies be no longer than 
thirty-five (35) pages, including exhibits, appendices, and affidavits 
of expert witnesses. Empirical economic studies and copies of relevant 
state orders will not be counted against these page limits. The page 
limits will not be waived and will be strictly enforced. Comments and 
replies must include a short and concise summary of the substantive 
arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and replies must also comply 
with Section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's 
rules. The Commission also directs 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 also must clearly 
identify the specific portion of this NPRM 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 outline 
of this NPRM, such comments must be included in a clearly labelled 
section at the beginning or end of the filing. Parties may not file 
more than a total of ten (10) pages of ex parte submissions, excluding 
cover letters. This 10 page limit does not include: (1) written ex 
parte filings made solely to disclose an oral ex parte contact; (2) 
written material submitted at the time of an oral presentation to 
Commission staff that provides a brief outline of the presentation; or 
(3) written material filed in response to direct requests from 
Commission staff. Ex parte filings in excess of this limit will not be 
considered as part of the record in this proceeding.
    45. Parties are invited to submit, in conjunction with their 
comments or replies, proposed text for rules that the Commission could 
adopt in this proceeding. Specific rule proposals should be filed as an 
appendix to a party's comments or reply, and will not be counted 
against the page limits set forth in the preceding paragraph. Such 
appendices may include only proposed text for rules that would 
implement proposals set forth in the parties' comments and replies in 
this proceeding, and may not include any comments or arguments.
    46. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in 
Commission rules.

IV. Conclusion

V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    47. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. Section 601 et seq. (1981), the Commission has prepared a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the expected impact on small 
entities resulting from the policies and proposals set forth in the 
NPRM. The full analysis is contained within the NPRM. The Secretary 
shall send a copy of the NPRM to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    48. Accordingly, it is further ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 
4(i)-4(j), 201-205, 226, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 226, and 276 that a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is ADOPTED.
    49. It is furhter ordered that the Chief of the Common Carrier 
Bureau is delegated authority to require the submission of additional 
information, make further inquiries, and modify the dates and 
procedures, if necessary, to provide for a fuller record and a more 
efficient proceeding.
    50. It is further ordered that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
is the Commission's disposition of all matters remanded by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Florida Public 
Telecommunications Ass'n. v, FCC, 54 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
    51. It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of 
this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers; Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements; Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15789 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P