[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5160-5166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2703]


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

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