[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 64 (Monday, April 5, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16353-16358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7787]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 69

[CC Docket No. 97-181; FCC 99-28]


Defining Primary Lines

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission adopts a location-based 
definition of ``primary residential line.'' Under this definition, one 
residential line that a price cap local exchange carrier (LEC) provides 
to a particular location will be considered primary. Any other 
residential lines the price cap LEC provides to the same location shall 
be deemed non-primary residential lines. The Commission maintains the 
existing definition of ``single line business line.'' These definitions 
will facilitate implementation of the Commission's access charge rules, 
which set higher caps for the subscriber line charges (SLCs) and 
presubscribed interexchange carrier charges (PICCs) that price cap LECs 
may assess on non-primary residential lines and multi-line business 
lines than on primary residential lines and single line business lines. 
Adopting requirements for differentiating and identifying such lines 
will promote uniformity in the way price cap LECs assess SLCs and 
PICCs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The entire file is available for inspection and copying 
weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Commission's Reference 
Center, 445 Twelfth Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Copies may be 
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, ITS Inc., 1231 
Twentieth St., NW, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Fried, Common Carrier Bureau, 
(202) 418-1520; TTY: (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    1. To provide interstate telecommunications services, interexchange 
carriers (IXCs) usually rely on some of the telephone infrastructure 
that incumbent LECs use to provide local telephone service. The 
incumbent LEC's local loop, for example, connects a customer to the LEC 
network so that the customer can make and receive intrastate calls. The 
incumbent LEC's local loop also connects the customer to the networks 
of IXCs so that the customer can make and receive interstate calls. 
Consequently, a portion of the costs an incumbent LEC incurs in 
providing this common infrastructure is allocated to intrastate service 
and recovered pursuant to state regulation, and a portion is allocated 
to interstate service and recovered pursuant to regulations of the 
Federal Communications Commission.
    2. The Commission adopted uniform access charge rules in 1983 to 
govern the way incumbent LECs recover that portion of the costs of the 
common infrastructure allocated to interstate service. Under these 
rules, the Commission allows incumbent LECs to recover some of the 
interstate costs of providing the local loop through a flat, monthly 
end-user common line charge (EUCL)--sometimes called a SLC--that they 
assess on end users. The Commission limited the amount of the SLC, 
however, because of concerns that an excessively high SLC might cause 
end users to disconnect their telephone service. The Commission allowed 
the incumbent LECs to recover the

[[Page 16354]]

remainder of their interstate costs attributable to the local loop 
through a per-minute carrier common line charge (CCLC) that they assess 
on IXCs.
    3. Under principles of cost-causation, it is most economically 
efficient for incumbent LECs to recover the costs of providing 
interstate access in the same way that they incur them. Under such 
principles, incumbent LECs should recover their traffic-sensitive costs 
of interstate access through per-minute charges, and should recover 
their non-traffic-sensitive costs through flat charges. The incumbent 
LECs' costs of providing the local loop do not change with the number, 
length, or type of telephone calls customers make, and so are non-
traffic sensitive. Because of the cap on SLCs, however, incumbent LECs 
recover some of these non-traffic-sensitive loop costs through the 
traffic sensitive CCLC. In its May 1997 Access Charge Reform Order, the 
Commission decided to phase out the CCLC for price cap LECs on the 
grounds that recovering the non-traffic-sensitive loop costs through 
traffic-sensitive charges is economically inefficient.
    4. To provide price cap LECs with a means to recover some of the 
loop costs they previously recovered in the CCLC, the Commission raised 
the price cap LECs' SLC caps for non-primary residential lines and 
multi-line business lines, but chose not to raise the price cap LECs' 
SLC caps for primary residential lines and single line business lines. 
For 1999, the SLC cap for price cap LECs is $3.50 per month for each 
primary residential and single line business line, $6.07 per month for 
each non-primary residential line, and $9.20 per month for each multi-
line business line. To address concerns that charging a higher SLC for 
non-primary residential lines sold by price cap LECs might encourage 
subscribers to obtain their additional residential lines from 
resellers, the Commission decided in the Access Charge Reform Order to 
allow price cap LECs to charge the higher SLC to carriers that resell 
price-cap LECs' lines if the lines are non-primary.
    5. Because the SLC caps on residential and single line business 
lines would prevent most price cap LECs from recovering through the SLC 
all the costs they formerly recovered through the CCLC, the Commission 
also created the PICC: a flat, per-line charge that price cap LECs may 
assess on an end user's presubscribed IXC. As with the SLC, the 
Commission set higher PICC caps for non-primary residential lines and 
multi-line business lines than for primary residential lines and single 
line business lines. Through June 30, 1999, the PICC cap is $0.53 per 
month for each primary residential and single line business line, $1.50 
per month for each non-primary residential line, and $2.75 per month 
for each multi-line business line. As a result of the various caps, the 
lines of customers that subscribe to single residential or business 
lines are not assessed the entire cost of the loops. Until the access 
reform rate structure is fully phased in, these lines are subsidized by 
customers that subscribe to multiple business lines.
    6. The Commission sought comment in a September 1997 notice of 
proposed rulemaking (Notice) on whether to modify its rules to provide 
for the definition, identification, and verification of primary 
residential lines and single line business lines. 62 FR 48042, 
September 12, 1997; 12 FCC Rcd 13647. Choosing appropriately balanced 
definitions is important because as primary residential and single line 
business line counts increase, so, too, does the subsidy that multi-
line business line customers must bear during the phase-in of the 
access reform rate structure.

B. Definition of Primary Residential Line

1. Background

    7. The Commission's rules currently do not define ``primary 
residential line.'' The Commission sought comment in the Notice on 
whether to define the primary residential line as the primary line of a 
residence, of a household, of a subscriber, or on some other basis. 
Under a residence definition, only one line per service location--such 
as a house or an apartment--would receive primary line status. Under a 
household definition, each family unit would receive one primary line, 
so that if multiple families live in one house, each family would 
receive one line at rates with the lower caps. Under a subscriber 
definition, one line would be given primary-line status for each 
account opened with the carrier.
    8. In the meantime, each price cap LEC devised its own definition 
for the purpose of its 1998 access tariff filings. The Commission 
concluded in its investigation of those tariff filings that, pending 
completion of this rulemaking proceeding, defining as a primary line 
either one line per residence or one line per billing-name account per 
residence was ``not unreasonable'' for purposes of the tariff filings. 
The Commission also found that reasonable definitions of primary and 
non-primary residential lines should, at a minimum, ``categorize a 
second residential line as non-primary if the line is billed to the 
same name at the same location.''
    9. In the Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded that price 
cap LEC records might be inadequate to identify primary residential 
lines, particularly if the Commission adopted a household-based 
definition. Based on the presumption that identifying primary 
residential lines without information from the customer would be more 
administratively burdensome, the Commission tentatively concluded to 
permit price cap LECs to use end-user self-certification to identify 
primary lines.

2. Discussion

    10. Some commenters have supported each of the definitions of 
primary residential line that the Commission identified in the Notice: 
household-based, account-based, and location-based. None of these 
definitions is flawless. An account-based definition, for example, 
would permit a subscriber to have multiple primary lines by ordering 
each line under a different account name. A location-based definition 
does not permit subscribers who share the same address, such as 
housemates, each to have his or her own primary line. A household-based 
definition would present carriers, consumers, and the Commission with 
the ambiguous and administratively burdensome task of determining which 
subscribers are part of which households. We have balanced the 
advantages and disadvantages of each option. We conclude that a 
location-based definition is the least intrusive and most 
administratively feasible definition that fulfills the Access Charge 
Reform Order's objectives for setting higher SLC and PICC caps for non-
primary residential lines and multi-line business lines.
    11. Thus, we will consider one residential line provided by a price 
cap LEC per service location to be a primary residential line. For 
example, only one line per house, per apartment, or per college dorm 
room will receive primary-line rates. We begin by noting along with a 
number of commenters that LECs can implement this definition based on 
their service records. As the Commission stated in the Notice, a 
location-based definition is ``administratively simple and less 
invasive of subscribers' privacy because it does not require the 
gathering of information regarding subscriber living arrangements that 
would be needed to identify households.'' Consequently, this definition 
obviates the need for the self-certification procedure that the 
Commission outlined in the Notice, a

[[Page 16355]]

procedure that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) argues would 
be ineffective and burdensome. A customer's service location is also 
straightforward to determine and not something the customer can easily 
alter or misreport to obtain the primary-line rate. This definition 
will require carriers to cross-check records within a service location 
to ensure that only one subscriber line per residence receives the 
primary-line rates, but sorting records by service location should be 
relatively easy. Furthermore, many price cap LECs are already moving 
toward a location-based definition in their tariffs.
    12. The Commission's rules that establish PICCs and set different 
SLC caps for primary residential lines than for non-primary residential 
lines apply only to price cap LECs, not to rate-of-return LECs. 
Consequently, the definition of primary residential line shall apply 
only to price cap LECs. The Commission has sought comment on whether to 
apply to rate-of-return LECs the rules regarding PICCs and the higher 
caps for non-primary residential lines, but has not issued an order 
resolving that issue. Should the Commission decide at a later date to 
apply such rules to rate-of-return LECs, the Commission will address at 
that time how to define, identify, and verify primary residential lines 
and single line business lines for rate-of-return LECs. Thus the 
Commission does not address issues that the Notice raised regarding 
rate-of-return LECs.
    13. A number of commenters oppose the location-based definition 
because it allows only one primary line per multi-subscriber residence. 
If, for example, two roommates each subscribe to a line, only one line 
will be billed at the primary-line rate. Generally, however, only a 
single residential connection is necessary to permit all residents at a 
particular service location complete access to telecommunications and 
information services, including access to emergency services.
    14. If a subscriber has both a primary and secondary home, this 
definition would also treat one line in each home as primary. We note 
that this definition departs from current practice in the business 
context, under which a business with one line in each of multiple 
locations in the same telephone company area receives multi-line 
business rates on each line. We find it unnecessary to extend this 
policy to the residential context. As many comments point out, the 
burden of investigating whether a particular residential subscriber has 
lines in multiple residences outweighs any benefit from collecting the 
higher non-primary line rates, especially as the number of subscribers 
with multiple residences, and thus the number of lines that would be 
reclassified from primary to non-primary, is likely only a small 
percentage of all residential lines. Furthermore, in many instances 
different incumbent LECs will serve the primary and secondary 
residences. This further complicates the task of determining which 
subscribers have multiple residences, and raises the difficult question 
of which line would be deemed the primary line, assuming the subscriber 
could have only one primary line throughout all his or her residences. 
We also note that the number of residential subscribers is larger than 
the number of business subscribers.
    15. We will look at all lines provided by a particular price cap 
LEC, whether sold by the price cap LEC or a reseller, when determining 
the status of the lines to a residence. We do so to address concerns 
that charging higher rates for non-primary residential lines sold by 
price cap LECs might encourage subscribers to obtain their additional 
lines from resellers for no reason other than to avoid the higher SLC. 
Consequently, we do not accept the invitation of some commenters to 
qualify our definition further by treating as primary one line per 
location per service provider. Doing so would create an artificial 
incentive for subscribers to spread their lines out among price cap 
LECs and multiple resellers merely to avoid the higher SLCs and PICCs 
associated with non-primary residential lines.
    16. We do not seek to discourage subscribers from ordering services 
from multiple providers, but also do not want to create an artificial 
incentive for them to do so. Thus, when a price cap LEC has already 
sold a line to a residence, the price cap LEC may assess the higher 
rates on any additional resold lines. If, however, a resold price cap 
LEC line is the primary line, as is the case when all the lines to the 
residence are purchased from one or more resellers, the resold line 
will remain the primary line should a price cap LEC subsequently sell 
an additional line to that residence. If the price cap LEC line and 
resold line are sold simultaneously, the price cap LEC line shall be 
the primary line. When lines are sold to a location by both a price cap 
LEC and at least one reseller of price cap LEC lines, one of the lines 
must be identified as primary, but which one will have little impact on 
the end user: whichever line is deemed primary, the sum of the SLC and 
PICC charges to the consumer will be the same. Because the price cap 
LEC is physically providing both lines, we think it reasonable that it 
get the primary line designation in the rare circumstance that both 
lines are sold simultaneously.
    17. Lines sold by wireless carriers and competitive LECs that do 
not resell price cap LEC lines shall not be considered in determining 
residential line status. Such carriers are not rate regulated by the 
Commission and are not subject to the Commission's rules regarding SLCs 
and PICCs. Nor do price cap LECs collect SLCs or PICCs on those 
carriers' lines. This approach is equitable as between price cap LECs, 
resellers, competitive LECs, and wireless carriers because it does not 
provide any artificial advantage in marketing second lines. 
Furthermore, a price cap LEC would have difficulty determining whether 
its customers are also receiving lines from non-reselling competitive 
LECs or wireless carriers.
    18. We will not adopt a household-based definition of primary 
residential line. Although such a definition would allow multiple 
primary lines in multi-household residences (e.g., one for each family 
in a multi-family dwelling), it would also require gathering invasive 
information concerning living arrangements through a self-certification 
mechanism that would be administratively burdensome given the large 
universe of customers. The ambiguity of a household-based definition 
may also result in inconsistent application across subscribers, or 
encourage subscribers simply to declare themselves part of different 
households to receive the lower primary-line rates.
    19. Nor will we treat one line per subscriber account as primary. 
Such a definition would allow multiple subscribers at a single location 
to receive the lower primary-line rates on each line (e.g., roommates 
with individual accounts). Some commenters view this as an advantage to 
the definition. Any such advantage, however, is offset by the ability 
of a subscriber to game such a definition by obtaining multiple lines 
under different account names. Some carriers even allow customers to 
obtain separate accounts under the same name. Furthermore, universal 
service objectives are met so long as residents at a single location 
have access to one line at that location at the subsidized primary-line 
rates; allowing more than one such line per location excessively shifts 
costs onto other subscribers. We agree with commenters that an account-
based definition is unambiguous and compatible with most carriers' 
existing service records, but so too is a location-

[[Page 16356]]

based definition. An account-based definition would eliminate the need 
to check whether multiple subscribers are receiving lines at the same 
location, but the definition's other shortcomings outweigh this 
benefit. In any event, as noted above, sorting records by service 
location should not be difficult.
    20. We also do not adopt the suggestion of some commenters that we 
eliminate the primary/non-primary line distinction, perhaps by applying 
an averaged rate to all lines or replacing the PICC with a cost-based 
SLC. The Commission has, in the past, specifically decided not to raise 
the SLC caps on primary residential lines, in accordance with the 
recommendations of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. 
A narrow proceeding such as this is not the appropriate forum for 
considering a SLC increase.

C. Definition of Single Line Business Line

1. Background

    21. The Commission's rules for price cap LECs state that ``[a] line 
shall be deemed to be a single line business subscriber line if the 
subscriber pays a rate that is not described as a residential rate in 
the local exchange service tariff and does not obtain more than one 
such line from a particular telephone company.'' 47 CFR 69.152(i). The 
Commission defines ``telephone company'' for the purposes of the Part 
69 Rules as ``an incumbent local exchange carrier.'' See 47 CFR 
69.2(hh). The Commission sought comment in the Notice on whether to 
retain the definition of ``single line business line,'' and whether to 
consider as a single line business a business with a single line in 
each of multiple locations.

2. Discussion

    22. We shall retain the existing definition of single line business 
line. This definition allows incumbent LECs to assess the correct SLCs 
and PICCs on business lines without determining whether a customer 
receives service from other carriers.
    23. This definition treats as a single line business any business 
that obtains one line from a price cap LEC and other lines from a 
wireless carrier or a competitive LEC that does not resell the price 
cap LEC's lines. As in the context of residential lines, we do not 
include lines provided by wireless carriers and competitive LECs that 
do not resell price cap LEC lines because such carriers are not subject 
to the Commission's SLC and PICC requirements, and because price-cap 
LECs do not collect SLCs or PICCs on those carriers' lines.
    24. We clarify that if a business receives lines from a price cap 
LEC and a competitive LEC that is reselling the price cap LEC's lines, 
all those lines shall be considered multi-line business lines. 
Clarifying that all the lines provided by a price cap LEC become multi-
line business lines once a customer purchases a second line provided by 
that price cap LEC (whether sold by the price cap LEC or a reseller of 
the price cap LEC's lines) prevents businesses from avoiding the higher 
multi-line business charges by spreading out their lines among one 
price cap LEC and multiple resellers of the price cap LEC's lines.
    25. Under existing practice, a business with one line in each of 
multiple locations within a ``telephone company area'' is treated as a 
multi-line business. We will continue that practice. Thus when a 
business subscriber's account reflects a single line in each of two 
locations within a particular telephone company area, the subscriber 
will be treated as a multi-line business. Consequently, we shall 
maintain the existing definition of single line business line, thereby 
preserving the status quo both for price cap LECs and rate-of-return 
LECs.

D. Identification of Primary Residential and Single Line Business 
Lines

1. Background

    26. As discussed, the Commission tentatively concluded in the 
Notice to permit price cap LECs to use end-user self-certification to 
identify primary lines. The Commission also sought comment on whether 
to require resellers to relay primary- and non-primary-line data to 
price cap LECs, or whether price cap LECs should identify the primary 
and non-primary lines of resellers' customers directly. Thus, if 
resellers collected self-certifications, the Commission asked whether 
resellers should be required to provide those certifications to price 
cap LECs so that the price cap LECs could assess on the resellers the 
appropriate SLCs. The Commission tentatively concluded that it would 
not use databases, county and municipal records, or social security 
numbers to identify primary lines because such proposals are 
administratively burdensome and raise privacy concerns.

2. Discussion

    27. The definitions of primary residential line and single line 
business line will enable price cap LECs to use their service records 
to identify the status of their lines. This approach alleviates the 
concerns that carrier records would be insufficient to identify line-
status, as those concerns were directed primarily at a household-based 
definition of primary residential line. Carriers will have the 
necessary information in their existing service records; thus, allowing 
carriers to use their records is the least burdensome option for 
carriers, consumers, and the Commission, and minimizes privacy 
concerns. Carrier records are also relatively easy to verify and 
reasonably immune from gaming or misreporting by customers, willful or 
otherwise.
    28. Consequently, we need not address various administrative and 
privacy issues related to the self-certification method discussed in 
the Notice. Price cap carriers are, of course, still subject to 
tariffing requirements, and the Commission can always examine carriers' 
line counts in a tariff investigation. We note, also, that carriers are 
governed by statutory and regulatory restraints regarding the treatment 
of customer information to the extent that they apply to data regarding 
line status.
    29. We will require each price cap LEC to identify the status of 
the lines it provides to resellers. We are not persuaded by commenters' 
arguments that requiring price cap LECs to determine the status of 
other carriers' lines will raise administrative and confidentiality 
concerns. Most of these comments focused on the difficulties of 
identifying lines provided by facilities-based competitive LECs, not 
resellers of price cap LECs' lines, or presumed a self-certification 
procedure. We believe that the price cap LECs are in a better position 
going forward than the resellers to know all their lines going to a 
particular residence, as their service records indicate both the lines 
the price cap LECs bill and the lines they provide on behalf of 
resellers. Thus, we will not require resellers to identify their 
primary and non-primary lines to price cap LECs. The issues the 
Commission raised in the Notice regarding the exchange of information 
between price cap LECs and resellers are largely mooted by our decision 
to adopt a location-based definition of primary line and to allow 
carriers to use service records rather than self-certification to 
identify line status. Because of that decision, as well as our 
clarification of the single line business line definition, price cap 
LECs will have the information necessary to administer the definitions, 
eliminating the need to share data with, or collect data from, other 
carriers.

[[Page 16357]]

E. Customer Notification

    30. Because the distinction between primary and non-primary 
residential lines may cause customer confusion, the Commission sought 
comment in the Notice on whether to require carriers to provide 
consumers with a uniform disclosure statement describing the 
distinction. The Commission tentatively concluded that such a 
disclosure requirement would be consistent with applicable First 
Amendment standards, and sought comment on that conclusion. The 
Commission also sought comment on how, if it adopts a consumer 
disclosure statement that refers to the SLC cap on non-primary lines, 
such disclosure statement should indicate any future increases in the 
SLC cap. The Commission sought comment on whether such a statement 
would be compatible with marketing and consumer information campaigns 
that carriers have instituted or may be formulating. The Commission has 
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-170 focused 
on truth-in-billing. 63 FR 55077, October 14, 1998; Truth-in-Billing, 
CC Docket No. 98-170, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98-232 (rel. 
Sept. 17, 1998). We think it more appropriate to consider these issues 
in connection with that docket. Consequently, we refer these issues to 
that proceeding.

F. Detailed PICC Billing of IXCs

    31. AT&T, MCI, and Sprint have asked the Commission to require 
price cap LECs to issue detailed bills that enable interexchange 
carriers to audit the PICC charges that price cap LECs assess on them. 
Creating additional requirements is not necessary at this time. We 
already require price cap LECs to provide interexchange carriers with 
customer-specific information about the PICCs they assess on them, and 
to include a ``class of customer'' indicator on Customer Account Record 
Exchange (CARE) transactions for new customer notifications. 
Furthermore, our decisions in the order concerning the definition and 
identification of primary residential lines and single line business 
lines should facilitate clearer and more uniform billing of SLCs and 
PICCs.

G. Procedural Matters

1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    32. The Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) in the Notice in this docket, as required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 603. The Commission 
sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including 
comment on the IRFA. The RFA also requires the Commission to prepare a 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact the order might have on small entities, 
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    33. The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and 
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the 
term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission 
has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its 
activities. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A small business concern is one that: (1) 
Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 
of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by 
the Small Business Administration (SBA). Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 
632. The SBA has further defined a small business for SIC categories 
4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone 
Communications, Except Radiotelephone) as a business with no more than 
1,500 employees. 13 CFR 121.201. A small organization is generally 
``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(4). ``Small 
governmental jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than 50,000.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    34. Only price cap LECs currently assess SLCs and PICCs, and the 
order places the responsibility for differentiating and identifying 
primary residential lines and single line business lines only on price 
cap LECs, as discussed above. Consequently, the order will not 
significantly affect ``small organizations'' or ``small governmental 
jurisdictions,'' and we only address the impact on small price cap 
LECs. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of 
``small entity'' specifically applicable to price-cap LECs. The closest 
definition under SBA rules is that for establishments providing 
``Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone.''
    35. According to our most recent data, 1,371 carriers reported that 
they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Fewer 
than 20 of these carriers are price-cap incumbent LECs. Consistent with 
our prior practice, we shall continue to exclude small incumbent LECs 
from the definition of ``small entity.'' We consider these carriers 
dominant in their field of operations. Some also are not independently 
owned and operated, and most if not all likely have more than 1,500 
employees. We therefore certify that our decisions in this proceeding 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the order, including 
the certification, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. See 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A summary of the order and the certification will 
also be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

2. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    36. The decision contained herein has been analyzed with respect to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13, and does 
not contain new and/or modified information collections subject to OMB 
review.

H. Ordering Clauses

    37. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and 
(j), 201-209, 218-222, 251, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-209, 218-222, 251, 
254, and 403, that the order is adopted.
    38. It is further ordered that section 69.152 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 69.152, is amended as set forth in the rule changes.
    39. It is further ordered that the policies, rules, and 
requirements adopted herein shall be effective July 1, 1999.
    40. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public 
Affairs, References Operations Division, shall send a copy of the 
Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 69

    Access charges, Communications common carriers, End-user common 
line charge, Multi-line business line, Non-primary residential line, 
Price cap local exchange carriers, Primary interexchange carrier 
charge, Primary residential line, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Single line business line, Subscriber line charge, 
Telephone.


[[Page 16358]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 69 as follows;

PART 69--ACCESS CHARGES

    1. The authority citation for part 69 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 220, 254, 
403.

    2. Section 69.152 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 69.152  End user common line for price cap local exchange 
carriers.

* * * * *
    (h) Only one of the residential subscriber lines a price cap LEC 
provides to a location shall be deemed to be a primary residential 
line.
    (1) For purposes of Sec. 69.152(h), ``residential subscriber line'' 
includes residential lines that a price cap LEC provides to a 
competitive LEC that resells the line and on which the price cap LEC 
may assess access charges.
    (2) If a customer subscribes to residential lines from a price cap 
LEC and at least one reseller of the price cap LEC's lines, the line 
sold by the price cap LEC shall be the primary line, except that if a 
resold price cap LEC line is already the primary line, the resold line 
will remain the primary line should a price cap LEC subsequently sell 
an additional line to that residence.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-7787 Filed 4-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P