[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31040-31044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14629]



[[Page 31040]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 69

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


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is concerned that its most recent changes to 
access charges assessed on multi-line business lines may encourage some 
multi-line businesses that are currently using switched access to 
purchase instead special access lines, which would negatively affect 
the Commission's transition from the per-minute carrier common line 
(CCL) charge to the flat presubscribed interexchange carrier charge 
(PICC) as set out in the Access Charge Reform First Report and Order. 
The Commission tentatively concludes, therefore, that it should permit 
price cap LECs to assess a PICC on special access lines to recover 
revenues for the common line basket. The Commission seeks comments on 
this proposal and the related issue of how special access connections 
should be counted for purposes of assessing a ``per line'' PICC. This 
rule will help ensure the transition from the per minute CCL charge to 
the flat PICC. In the second part of this FNPRM, the Commission also 
addresses the allocation of general support facility costs. Under the 
current allocation of general support facility costs, incumbent LECs 
recover through interstate access charges costs associated with the 
LECs' nonregulated billing and collection functions. In the FNPRM, the 
Commission tentatively concludes that price cap incumbent LECs' general 
purpose computer costs attributable to billing and collection should 
not be recovered through regulated access charges. The Commission seeks 
comment on two proposed options for reassigning these costs to the 
billing and collection category. This rule is intended to correct the 
misallocation of GSF costs.

DATES: Comments for the notice of proposed rulemaking, including 
comments on the information collection requirements are due on or 
before June 26, 1997. Replies are due on or before July 11, 1996, 
except that reply comments on the information collection requirements 
are due on or before July 28, 1997. Written comments must be submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or 
modified information collections on or before August 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, 
D.C. 20554. Parties should also file two copies of any pleading with 
the Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Room 518, 1919 
M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments on the information 
collections also should be filed with the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission. Parties commenting on the information 
collections should also file a copy of any filing with Judy Boley, 
Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20554 and with Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 
NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Lerner, Attorney, Common 
Carrier Bureau, Competitive Pricing Division, (202) 418-1530. For 
additional information concerning the information collections contained 
in this Report and Order contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the 
Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted May 7, 1997, and released 
May 16, 1997. The full text of this Proposed Rulemaking is available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC. The 
complete text also may be obtained through the World Wide Web, at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common__Carrier/Orders/fcc.97158.wp, or may 
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M St., NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037. This FNPRM contains proposed or modified 
information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA). It has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other 
Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed or modified 
information collections contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This FNPRM contains either a proposed or modified information 
collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information 
collections contained in this FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due at the same time as other comments on this FNPRM; OMB comments 
are due 60 days from date of publication of this FNPRM in the Federal 
Register. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have 
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden 
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    OMB Approval Number: None.
    Title: Access Charge Reform Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit..
    Number of Respondents: 13.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 720 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 9,360 hours.
    Estimated costs per respondent: $22,200.
    Total Annual Estimated Costs per respondent: $288,600.
    Needs and Uses: Under this proposal, a price cap LEC would study 
the uses of the general purpose computer assets recorded in Account 
2124 to determine the percentage of investment in that account that is 
used for billing collection activities. We propose that each price cap 
LEC add to its cost allocation manual (CAM) a new section entitled 
``Interstate Billing and Collection.'' That section would describe: (1) 
The manner in which the price cap LEC provides interstate billing and 
collection services, and (2) the study it uses to determine the portion 
of Account 2124 investment that it attributes to the billing and 
collection category. The special study would then be subject to the 
same independent audit requirements as other regulated and nonregulated 
cost allocations.

[[Page 31041]]

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Special Access Presuscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge

    In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek 
comment on our proposal to allow incumbent local exchange carriers to 
impose a Presuscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge (PICC) on special 
access lines.
1. Background
    2. As discussed in the Access Charge Reform, First Report and 
Order, CC Docket 96-262, FCC 97-158 (released May 16, 1997) (Access 
Charge Reform Order), in most cases, the $3.50 suscriber line charge 
(SLC) ceiling for primary residential and single-line business 
customers does not allow recovery through the SLC of the average per-
line common line revenues permitted under our price cap rules. 
Similarly, in certain service areas, the $6.00 SLC for multi-line 
business lines is insufficient to recover the average per-line revenues 
permitted by price cap regulation. To alleviate this shortfall, we are 
instituting a number of changes, including raising the ceiling on the 
SLC for multi-line business and second and additional residential 
lines. Although this increase in the SLC will recover some of the 
shortfall, other measures are needed to allow recovery of the common 
line revenues permitted under our rules.
    3. Therefore, we have permitted local exchange carriers (LECs) to 
recover common line revenues not recovered from the SLC by assessing 
flat, per-line charges on the end-user's presubscribed interexchange 
carrier. Specifically, we are permitting LECs to assess a PICC on all 
lines, subject to ceilings which will be increased each year. To the 
extent that the revenues from SLCs and PICCs on primary residential 
lines and single-line business lines are insufficient to recover the 
full common line revenues permitted by our price cap rules for these 
lines, or the multi-line SLCs are at their ceilings, incumbent LECs 
shall recover the difference by assessing an additional PICC on non-
primary residential and multi-line business lines. To the extent that 
these PICCs do not recover an incumbent LEC's remaining permitted CCL 
revenues, incumbent LECs generally shall recover any such residual 
common line revenues through per-minute carrier common line (CCL) 
charges assessed on originating access minutes.
    4. As a result of our new rules, certain multi-line businesses will 
be paying higher SLCs than they do now. Similarly, as the PICCs are 
phased in, interexchange carriers (IXCs) initially will be required to 
pay higher PICCs for a multi-line business end user compared to the 
PICC paid for a primary residential end user or a single-line business 
end user.
    5. In contrast, users of special access do not pay a SLC. 
Furthermore, under special access, IXCs do not incur the same local 
access charges that are incurred by end users using switched access. In 
light of our most recent changes to charges incurred by multi-line 
businesses, including the higher SLC and the new multi-line business 
PICC, it may be cost effective for some multi-line businesses that are 
currently using switched access to purchase instead special access 
lines.
    6. We are concerned that these facts could lead to the migration of 
certain businesses from the public switched network to special access, 
which would result in a decrease in projected revenue from multi-line 
SLCs. As a result PICCs for all remaining switched access lines will 
necessarily increase to make up for the loss of revenue.
2. Proposal
    7. We tentatively conclude that we should permit price cap LECs to 
assess a PICC on special access lines to recover revenues for the 
common line basket. The special access PICC would be no higher than the 
PICC that an incumbent LEC could charge for a multi-line business line. 
Under our proposal, the special access PICC would not recover transport 
interconnection charge (TIC) or marketing expense.
    8. We acknowledge that our proposal is a departure from established 
Commission practice that special access will not subsidize other 
services. Although our proposal is a subsidy, it is temporary in nature 
and will be phased out as the single-line PICC is phased in. We 
tentatively conclude that our proposal is necessary for our transition 
from the per-minute CCL charge to the flat PICC to work.
    9. We invite parties to comment on this proposal. We also seek 
comment on how special access connections should be counted for 
purposes of assessing a ``per line'' PICC. Parties should also address 
the extent to which our proposal affects large and small LECs 
differently and how small business entities, including small incumbent 
LECs and new entrants, will be affected.
    10. Consistent with our approach to reform the interstate access 
charge regime, however, we tentatively conclude that the scope of this 
proceeding should be limited to incumbent price cap LECs. As discussed 
in the Access Charge Reform Order, we have limited the scope of access 
reform, with some limited exceptions, to price cap incumbent LECs. 
These incumbent LECs are the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies 
(Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, Pacific Telesis, 
Southwestern Bell, U S West), Citizens, Frontier, GTE, Aliant (formerly 
Lincoln), SNET, and United/Central. Similarly, we limit the scope of 
this FNPRM. To the extent necessary, we will instead address the effect 
of these issues on rate-of-return carriers in our separate access 
reform proceeding for rate-of-return carriers in 1997. In that 
proceeding, we will have the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive 
review of the circumstances unique to these carriers. We seek comment 
on this tentative conclusion regarding the scope of this proceeding. We 
also invite parties to identify any changes that should be made to 
other access elements as a result of this proposed change.

B. Reallocation of General Support Facility Costs

    11. As discussed in Section IV. D of the Access Charge Reform 
Order, the current allocation of General Support Facility (GSF) costs 
enables incumbent LECs to recover through regulated interstate access 
charges costs associated with the LECs' nonregulated billing and 
collection functions. In this section, we seek comment on proposed 
changes in the allocation of price cap LECs' interstate costs between 
regulated interstate services and nonregulated billing and collection 
activities.
1. Background
    12. The costs that incumbent LECs recover through interstate access 
charges are determined by a multi-step process. Incumbent LECs first 
record their investment costs and booked expenses in the accounts 
prescribed by the Commission's Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts 
(USOA). They next divide the recorded investment and expenses between 
regulated and nonregulated services pursuant to Part 64 of the 
Commission's rules. Incumbent LECs then divide regulated expenses and 
investment costs between the state and interstate jurisdictions 
pursuant to the separations procedures prescribed in Part 36 of the 
Commission's rules. Finally, in accordance with our Part 69 access 
charge rules, the LEC apportions its regulated interstate costs among 
the interstate access and interexchange service categories.
    13. Because the Part 69 access charge rules are applied at the end 
of this

[[Page 31042]]

multi-step process, they are written to accommodate the accounts 
defined by the USOA and the cost categories prescribed by the 
Separations Manual. In 1987, the Commission revised its access charge 
rules in response to the Commission's comprehensive revision of both 
the USOA and the Separations Manual. Amendment of Part 69 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations, Access Charges, To Conform It With 
Part 36, Jurisdictional Separations Procedures, CC Docket No. 87-113, 
Report and Order, 52 FR 37368 (October 6, 1987), corrected 54 FR 8196 
(February 27, 1989) (Part 69 Conformance Order). In its Part 69 
Conformance Order, the Commission amended Part 69 to reapportion 
regulated interstate costs, including General Support Facilities (GSF) 
investment expenses, among the existing access elements.
    14. As discussed in Section IV.D of the Access Charge Reform Order, 
the GSF investment category in Part 36 includes assets that support 
other operations, such as land, buildings, vehicles, as well as general 
purpose computer investment accounted for in USOA Account 2124. Some 
incumbent LECs use general purpose computer equipment, which is 
included in the GSF investment category, to provide nonregulated 
billing and collection services to IXCs. The costs of providing 
interstate billing and collection service are not, however, treated as 
nonregulated in the Part 64 cost allocation process. Instead, 
nonregulated interstate billing and collection costs are identified 
through the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation process. The 
separations process allocates these costs to the various separations 
categories based on the separations of the three largest categories of 
expenses, i.e., plant specific expenses, plant non-specific expenses, 
and customer operations expenses. These three largest categories, or 
the ``Big Three Expenses,'' are the combined expense groups comprising: 
(1) Plant Specific Operations Expense, Accounts 6110, 6120, 6210, 6220, 
6230, 6310, and 6410; (2) Plant Nonspecific Operations Expenses, 
Accounts 6510, 6530, and 6540; and (3) Customer Operations Expenses, 
Accounts 6610 and 6620.
    15. In its comments in response to the Access Charge Reform NPRM, 
AT&T refers to the allocation of embedded GSF expenses, including 
general purpose computer expenses, among access categories as a 
misallocation resulting in an implicit cross-subsidy of incumbent LECs' 
nonregulated billing and collection services. Access Charge Reform, 
Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport 
Rate Structure and Pricing, Usage of the Public Switched Network by 
Information Service and Internet Access Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-
262, 94-1, 91-213, 96-263, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Third Report 
and Order, and Notice of Inquiry, 62 FR 4670 (January 31, 1997). This 
allocation, AT&T contends, results in the inappropriate support through 
regulated access charges of LECs' billing and collection service, which 
is a nonregulated, interstate service. AT&T estimates that $124 million 
of expenses recovered in interstate access support the nonregulated 
billing and collection category. Of the $124 million, AT&T states that 
$60.1 million is included in interstate switched access, and $20.5 
million is in interstate special access, with the remainder recovered 
by the SLC.
2. Proposal
    16. The failure of Part 69 to assign general purpose computer costs 
to the billing and collection category can be traced to our decision in 
the Part 69 Conformance Order to use an investment-based allocator to 
apportion general support facilities (GSF) investment. As discussed in 
Section IV.D of the Access Charge Reform Order, Sec. 69.307 of the 
Commission's rules apportions GSF investment among the billing and 
collection category, the interexchange category, and the access 
elements based on the amount of Central Office Equipment (COE), Cable 
and Wire Facilities (CWF), and Information Origination/Termination 
Equipment (IO/T) investment allocated to each Part 69 category. This 
rule appears on its face to provide for an allocation of GSF investment 
to billing and collection. Because no COE, CWF, or IO/T investment is 
allocated to the billing and collection category, however, no GSF 
investment, and thus no portion of general purpose computer investment, 
is allocated to the billing and collection category. Similarly, because 
expenses related to GSF investment are allocated in the same manner as 
GSF investment, no GSF expenses (including expenses related to general 
purpose computers) are allocated to billing and collection. Price cap 
LECs' costs allocated to the interstate billing and collection category 
are estimated to be approximately $480 million.
    17. As discussed in Section V of the Access Charge Reform Order, we 
limit the scope of access reform, with some limited exceptions, to 
price cap incumbent LECs. Consistent with our approach to reform the 
interstate access charge regime, we tentatively conclude that our 
proposed changes to the allocation of GSF investment will apply only to 
price cap LECs. We will address the misallocation of rate-of-return 
LECs' interstate costs between regulated interstate services and 
nonregulated billing and collection activities in our separate access 
reform proceeding for rate-of-return carriers in 1997, which will 
provide us with the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of 
the circumstances unique to these carriers. We seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion regarding the scope of this proceeding.
    18. To the extent that incumbent LECs' costs are underallocated to 
the billing and collection category, incumbent LECs' regulated services 
are recovering through interstate access charges costs associated with 
unregulated services. We therefore tentatively conclude that price cap 
incumbent LECs' general purpose computer costs attributable to billing 
and collection should not be recovered through regulated access 
charges. We seek comment on two options for reassigning these costs to 
the billing and collection category.
    19. Under the first option, a price cap LEC would study the uses of 
the general purpose computer assets recorded in Account 2124 to 
determine the percentage of investment in that account that is used for 
billing and collection activities. That percentage, multiplied by the 
ratio of the dollar amount in Account 2124 to the dollar amount in 
Account 2110, which accumulates the total GSF investment, would be 
applied to the interstate portion of Account 2110 to determine a dollar 
amount that represents general purpose computer assets used for 
interstate billing and collection activities. The dollar amount so 
identified would be attributed directly to the billing and collection 
category. The remainder of the interstate portion of Account 2110 shall 
be apportioned among the access elements and the interexchange category 
using the current investment allocator. General purpose computer 
expenses recorded in Account 6124 would be treated in a similar fashion 
to Account 2124. The interstate portion of Account 6124 would be 
allocated between: (a) The billing and collection category, and (b) all 
other elements and categories using the percentage derived for Account 
2124. The remainder of Account 6120 (GSF expense) would be apportioned 
based on current GSF allocators. Appropriate downward exogenous cost 
adjustments would be made to all price cap baskets.

[[Page 31043]]

    20. Two objections are commonly raised to the use of special 
studies to make regulatory cost allocations. First, such studies are 
said to be costly. We recognize that there are costs attached to a 
special study approach. We note, however, that price cap LECs may 
already be required to study the use of computer investment in Account 
2124 as part of the process of allocating that investment between 
regulated and nonregulated activities pursuant to the Part 64 joint 
cost rules. Second, it may be claimed that permitting price cap LECs to 
use special studies gives them too much discretion and that regulators 
are unable to ascertain the validity of the studies. To remedy this 
concern, we propose that each price cap LEC add to its cost allocation 
manual (CAM) a new section entitled ``Interstate Billing and 
Collection.'' That section would describe: (1) The manner in which the 
price cap LEC provides interstate billing and collection services, and 
(2) the study it uses to determine the portion of Account 2124 
investment that it attributes to the billing and collection category. 
The special study would then be subject to the same independent audit 
requirements as other regulated and nonregulated cost allocations. In 
addition, to obtain an independent certification of the validity of the 
procedures adopted by the price cap LEC, we would instruct the 
independent auditors to examine the design and execution of the study 
during the first independent audit following the addition of the 
billing and collection section to the CAM and to report their 
conclusions on the validity of the study.
    21. Under the second option, we would modify Sec. 69.307 of our 
rules to require use of a general expense allocator to allocate the 
interstate portion of Account 2110 between: (1) The billing and 
collection category, and (2) all other elements and categories. We 
propose to use the ``Big Three Expense'' allocator used elsewhere in 
Part 69, excluding, however, any account or portion of an account that 
is itself apportioned based on the apportionment of GSF to avoid 
circularity. The GSF investment not allocated to the billing and 
collection category would then be apportioned among the access elements 
and the interexchange category using the current investment allocator. 
This would ensure that GSF costs are allocated among all access 
categories, including the billing and collection category. The 
interstate portion of Account 6120 would be apportioned among all 
elements and categories based on the overall apportionment of GSF 
investment. This option covers only price cap incumbent LECs that 
provide interstate billing and collection using regulated assets. 
Carriers that acquire billing and collection services from unregulated 
affiliates through affiliate transactions or from third parties would 
continue recording their expenses for acquiring such services in 
Account 6623, which is already apportioned to the billing and 
collection category.
    22. We invite parties to comment on the feasibility of these two 
options and propose alternative methods for reassigning general purpose 
computer costs to the billing and collection category. Parties should 
also address the extent to which either option affects large and small 
LECs differently and how small business entities, including small 
incumbent LECs and new entrants, will be affected. We invite parties to 
identify any changes that should be made to other access elements as a 
result of any changes we may make to the GSF allocation procedures.

C. Procedural Issues

1. Ex Parte Presentations
    23. This is a non-restricted notice-and-comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in 
the Commission's rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.
2. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
    24. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the 
policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. 
These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing 
deadlines as comments on the rest of the FNPRM, but they must have a 
separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the 
regulatory flexibility analysis. The Secretary shall cause a copy of 
the FNPRM, including the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to be 
sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the RFA.
    25. Reason for action. The Commission has revised its interstate 
access charge rules to make them consistent with the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996. As discussed in the FNPRM, multi-line business customers 
will pay a higher subscriber line charge as a result of access charge 
reform, while special access customers do not pay such a charge. In 
addition, as the PICCs are phased in IXCs will be required to pay a 
substantially higher PICC for a multi-line business end user compared 
to the PICC paid for a primary residential end user or single-line 
business end user. An IXC serving multi-line business customers through 
special access can avoid paying the PICCs. As discussed in the FNPRM, 
the current allocation of general support facilities expenses enables 
incumbent LECs to recover through regulated interstate access charges 
costs caused by the LECs' nonregulated billing and collection 
functions.
    26. Objectives. By proposing to allow LECs to impose a subscriber 
line charge on special access customers, we seek to prevent a decrease 
in projected revenue from multi-line subscriber line charges and PICCs 
caused by the migration of certain multi-line business customers from 
the public switched network to special access. We seek to revise the 
Commission's current allocation of price cap LECs' interstate costs 
between regulated interstate access services and nonregulated billing 
and collection activities to move interstate access rates closer to 
cost, consistent with the 1996 Act's new competitive paradigm.
    27. Legal Basis. The proposed action is supported by Sections 4(i), 
4(j), 201-205, 208, 251, 252, 253, and 403 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 208, 251, 252, 
253, 403.
    28. Description, potential impact and number of small entities 
affected. For purposes of this FNPRM, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
defines a ``small business'' to be the same as a ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act (SBA), 15 U.S.C. 632, unless the 
Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate 
to its activities. See 5 U.S.C. sec. 601(3) (incorporating by reference 
the definition of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. sec. 632). 
Under the SBA, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the 
SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc., v. 
Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994). The Small Business 
Administration has defined a small business for Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) category 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except 
Radiotelephone) to be a small entity that

[[Page 31044]]

has no more than 1500 employees. 13 CFR 121.201.
    29. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The proposals in 
the FNPRM, if adopted, would affect all LECs that are regulated by the 
Commission's price cap rules. Currently, 13 incumbent LECs are subject 
to price cap regulation. We tentatively conclude that all price cap 
carriers have more than 1500 employees and, therefore, are not small 
entities.
    30. Reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirements. It 
is not clear whether, on balance, all proposals in this FNPRM would 
increase or decrease incumbent LECs' administrative burdens.
    31. We believe that the reforms proposed in the first section of 
the FNPRM would require price cap LECs (not small entities) to make at 
least one tariff filing, and possibly several additional filings, but 
otherwise should not affect their administrative burdens. The reforms 
proposed in the second section of the FNPRM may require price cap LECs 
(not small entities) to study the uses of the general purpose computer 
assets recorded in Account 2124 to determine the percentage of 
investment in that account that is used for billing and collection 
activities, but otherwise should not affect their administrative 
burdens.
    32. Federal rules which overlap, duplicate or conflict with this 
proposal. None.
    33. Any significant alternatives minimizing impact on small 
entities and consistent with stated objectives. In the FNPRM, we limit 
the scope of our proposals to incumbent price cap LECs, thereby not 
affecting small entities. We seek comment on these proposals and urge 
that parties support their comments with specific evidence and 
analysis.
3. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comment Filing Dates
    34. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sec. 1.399 and 
1.411 et seq. of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.399, 1.411 et seq., 
interested parties may file comments, including comments on the 
information collection requirements, no later than June 26, 1997, with 
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington D.C. 
20554. Interested parties must file replies no later than July 11, 
1997, except that reply comments on the information collection 
requirements are due no later that July 28, 1997. To file formally in 
this proceeding, participants must file an original and twelve copies 
of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If 
participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their 
comments, an original plus 16 copies must be filed. In addition, 
parties should file two copies of any such pleading with the 
Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Room 518, 1919 M 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will 
be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 
20554.
    35. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them along with 
their formal filings to the Office of the Secretary. Submissions should 
be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in a DOS PC compatible form. The 
document should be saved in WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows format. The 
diskette should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should 
be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading 
(comment or reply comment), docket number, and date of submission.
    36. You may also file informal comments electronically via e-mail 
<[email protected]>. Only one copy of electronically-filed comments must 
be submitted. You must put the docket number of this proceeding in the 
subject line (see the caption at the beginning of this FNPRM, or in the 
body of the text if by Internet). You must note whether an electronic 
submission is an exact copy of formal comments on the subject line. You 
also must include your full name and Postal Service mailing address in 
your submission.
    37. Comments and replies must comply with Section 1.49 and all 
other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We also direct all 
interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date 
of the filing on each page of their comments and replies. Comments and 
replies must also clearly identify the specific portion of this FNPRM 
to which a particular comment or set of comments is responsive. If a 
portion of a party's comments does not fall under a particular topic 
listed in the Table of Contents of this FNPRM, such comments must be 
included in a clearly labelled section at the beginning or end of the 
filing.
    38. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified 
information collections are due July 28, 1997. Written comments must be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed 
and/or modified information collections on or before 60 days after date 
of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments 
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information 
collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, 
DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to Timothy Fain, 
OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 
20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

D. Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1-4, 10, 201-205, 
251, 254, 303(r), and 410(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, and Section 601 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 
U.S.C. secs. 10, 151-154, 201-205, 224, 251, 254, 303(r) 410(a), and 
601, that notice is hereby given of the rulemaking described above and 
that comment is sought on these issues.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 69

    Access charges, Communications common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-14629 Filed 6-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U