[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 105 (Wednesday, May 31, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34629-34633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13588]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 68

[CC Docket No. 99-216; FCC 00-171]


2000 Biennial Review; Streamlining Technical Criteria and 
Registration for Customer Premises Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to streamline most elements of the 
process by which technical criteria are established for customer 
premises equipment (CPE or terminal equipment) that, once approved, 
local exchange carriers must allow to be connected to the public 
switched telephone network (PSTN). The document also proposes to 
minimize Commission assessment of product compliance with technical 
criteria for such equipment. The intended effect of this document is to 
seek comment on various options for streamlining these processes.

DATES: Comments are to be filed on or before June 23, 2000, and reply 
comments are due on or before July 7, 2000. Written comments must be 
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed 
information collections on or before July 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. 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 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to 
Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Magnotti, (202) 418-2320 or 
email at [email protected] or Staci Pies at (202) 418-2794 or email at 
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the information 
collections contained in this NPRM contact Judy Boley at (202) 418-
0214, or email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking adopted on May 15, 2000, and released on May 22, 
2000. The full text of this Notice is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments 
will be available for public inspection during regular business hours 
in the FCC Reference Center. The complete text may also be obtained 
through the world wide web, at http:/www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common 
Carrier/Orders, or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    1. This NPRM contains a proposed information collection. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection(s) contained in 
this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as 
other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due 60 days 
from date of publication of this NPRM 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 Control Number: 3060-0056.
    Title: Registration of Telephone and Data Terminal Equipment.
    Form No.: FCC Form 730.
    Type of Review: Revision of existing collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 2400.

[[Page 34630]]

    Estimated Time Per Response: 24 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 57,600 hours.
    Cost to Respondents: $2,700,000.
    Needs and Uses: This information is needed to ascertain compliance 
of customer premises equipment with technical criteria designed to 
protect the public switched network from certain specific types of 
harm. The information would be used by the Commission in the event of a 
need for an adjudicatory proceeding regarding the level of compliance 
of specific pieces of customer premises equipment. It would be used by 
the public to locate the manufacturer of a specific piece of customer 
premises equipment. It would also be used by the U.S. Customs Service 
to determine whether customer premises equipment may be legally 
imported.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    2. CPE currently is regulated by part 68 of the rules, which 
establishes technical criteria designed to ensure that the CPE does not 
harm the PSTN or telephone company personnel and a registration process 
to verify which CPE complies with these criteria. Part 68 requires 
local exchange carriers to allow CPE that is registered as part 68 
compliant to be connected to their networks. As part of the 
Commission's overall mandate to reduce regulation wherever possible, 
consistent with the public interest, the Commission proposes in this 
Notice largely to privatize two of part 68's functions--first, the 
establishment of technical criteria for CPE to ensure it will not harm 
the PSTN and, second, the registration process used to determine 
whether a particular model of equipment meets those standards. The 
reduction of governmental involvement in the setting of technical 
criteria and registration of CPE is expected to have a beneficial 
impact upon the pace of new or competitive CPE deployment, and 
therefore it is expected to increase the choices available to 
consumers.
    3. The proposals in this Notice are based on positions that emerged 
from a series of industry fora the Commission held in July 1999 to 
explore the extent to which regulations in part 68, other than the 
hearing aid compatibility and volume control (HAC/VC) rules, may no 
longer be necessary. The Commission also includes proposals patterned 
after the rules establishing interconnection rules for cable television 
devices. In this Notice, the Commission proposes to retain in the rules 
proscriptions against certain harms to the PSTN that can be caused by 
offending CPE. The Commission also proposes that the rules continue to 
require that local exchange carriers (LECs) allow CPE that meets 
technical criteria for network protection to be connected freely to 
their networks. However, rather than the Commission's continuing to set 
such technical criteria, the Commission proposes in this Notice to use 
one of several potential industry standards-setting processes. The only 
technical criteria that the Commission proposes to retain in the rules 
are those that ensure access to telecommunications and services by 
persons with disabilities and those that deal with network demarcation 
and inside wire. To ensure that the public interest is adequately 
protected, the Commission proposes to provide for de novo Commission 
review and enforcement, where necessary, of the industry-established 
technical criteria in the event of an appeal regarding the criteria. 
The Commission expects, however, that such involvement would be 
extremely limited.
    4. The Commission proposes three options for an industry standards-
setting process. Under Option A the Commission would choose a 
``gatekeeper'' SDO that will establish and publish technical criteria 
for CPE developed pursuant to American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) procedures for consensus bodies. Thus, LECs would have to permit 
connection to the PSTN of any CPE that meets the technical criteria 
endorsed by the ``gatekeeper'' SDO. This option would not modify the 
existing industry standards setting process and the excellent 
cooperation that today exists among standards groups. Ideally, 
commenters that prefer this option would agree on what entity the 
Commission should designate as the ``gatekeeper'' SDO. Under Option B, 
we would rely directly on consensus positions achieved under standards 
development processes and organizations. This is essentially the same 
policy the Commission adopted for television ``set top boxes'' used in 
cable television and similar systems. The Commission's rules would 
establish general requirements that networks are to be protected from 
harms that could be caused when terminal equipment is connected and 
that customers have a right to connect terminal equipment that will not 
harm networks. The Commission's rules also would provide that terminal 
equipment that complies with technical specifications that are designed 
to protect networks from harm and that are consensus positions 
recommended by any national standards-setting organization would be 
presumed to comply with the Commission's general requirements on 
networks and customers' rights. Under Option C, the Commission proposes 
that interconnection standards be developed by national standards 
organizations and that specific standards be incorporated by reference 
into the Commission's rules.
    5. The Commission also proposes to assign to private industry the 
process of verifying that specific CPE meets the established technical 
criteria. The Commission has already established a procedure whereby 
CPE manufacturers may submit their products to private 
Telecommunications Certifications Bodies (TCBs), rather than the 
Commission, for part 68 registration. In this Notice, the Commission 
proposes to replace Commission registration entirely with either 
expanded use of the TCBs for certification, or self-certification or 
verification.
    6. The Commission maintains a data base of terminal equipment 
registered pursuant to part 68. Consistent with the proposal in this 
Notice to privatize many of the Commission's current part 68 functions, 
the Commission proposes that a private entity be responsible for 
sponsoring and maintaining a similar database. Entities obtaining 
equipment approval from TCBs and entities using either DoC or 
verification would be required to submit pertinent information 
regarding their identity and approved equipment to a database 
administrator. The only standards proposed for the database of approved 
CPE are that it be accurate and that it be readily available at a 
reasonable cost to users.
    7. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA), 21 USC 862; 47 CFR 1.2001 
through 1.2003, requires an entity receiving a ``federal benefit'' to 
certify compliance with ADAA requirements. In its decision implementing 
the ADAA, the Commission applied the definition of ``license'' found in 
the APA to determine the scope of the term ``license'' as used in 47 
U.S.C. section 5301 and thus to define the scope of federal benefits, 
see Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules to Implement Section 
5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Gen. Docket No. 90-312, Report 
and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 7551 (1991) (ADAA Report and Order). The APA 
defines ``license'' as including ``the whole or part of an agency 
permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter, membership, 
statutory exemption or other form of permission,'' 5 USC 551(8). 
Pursuant to this definition, Commission Part 68 registration of 
equipment was found to

[[Page 34631]]

be included within the scope of the ADAA.
    8. The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed DoC or 
verification procedures require ADAA certification. In addition, the 
Commission requests comment on whether any conflict would exist between 
use of the TCB procedure on the one hand, which currently requires 
certification under the ADAA, and the use of DoC and/or verification 
procedures on the other hand, which potentially might not be subject to 
ADAA requirements. The Commission requests comment on whether any ADAA 
certification continues to be required if it adopts the proposed 
privatization/streamlining proposals.
    9. The Commission is committed to ensuring that persons with 
disabilities and other consumers continue to receive the full level of 
enforcement that they currently receive. There was, however, some 
discussion in the fora regarding the effect of changing the 
registration process to DoC or verification on compliance with rules 
intended to protect access by persons with disabilities. The Commission 
requests comment on whether changes in the registration process 
proposed in this Notice may unintentionally affect compliance with 
consumer protection and HAC/VC provisions of part 68. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether any of the changes to part 68 proposed in this 
Notice will have an adverse impact on consumer protection or part 68 
HAC/VC rules.
    10. In addition, any complaints regarding compliance with the 
technical criteria relating to part 68 HAC/VC and consumer protection 
in part 68 would come directly to the Commission, as they do now. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether the present part 68 complaint 
procedures regarding the HAC/VC rules should be replaced or augmented 
with the procedures developed pursuant to section 255 of the 
Communications Act, parts 6 and 7 of the Commission's Rules.
    11. Parties generally agree, and the Commission so proposes, that 
the Commission should retain ultimate responsibility to enforce 
compliance with its rules, which would include industry-developed 
technical criteria that it may, upon appeal, review and enforce through 
a de novo review process. Moreover, the Commission proposes these 
enforcement policies notwithstanding which option for establishment of 
technical criteria it chooses, and which equipment approval option it 
chooses.
    12. The Commission requests comment on whether it would be 
appropriate for the Commission to revise the part 68 complaint rules, 
solely for complaints arising from HAC/VC rules, to incorporate 
procedures recently adopted pursuant to section 255 and 225 of the Act. 
See Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996--Access 
to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and 
Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WT Docket No. 
96-198, FCC 99-181, Report and Order and Further Notice of Inquiry, 64 
FR 63235 (Nov. 19, 1999); see also Telecommunications Relay Services 
and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 00-56, Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,--FCC Rcd. (rel. Mar. 6, 2000). 
In these proceedings, the Commission made it easier for consumers to 
file complaints and for subject entities to move quickly to resolve 
them. Accordingly, the Commission requests comment on whether a similar 
approach would be beneficial for enforcement of part 68 HAC/VC rules.
    13. The Commission proposes, solely for complaints arising from 
compliance with the technical criteria intended to prevent harm to the 
PSTN, that prior to filing a complaint with the Commission a party must 
follow an alternative dispute resolution process designed to minimize 
the number of complaints needing Commission de novo review. This 
provision requires the complainant to certify that it has made a good 
faith effort to discuss the possibility of settlement with each entity 
against which it is filing a complaint, and/or with the local exchange 
carrier. The Commission further requests comment on an alternative 
step: for equipment registered by a TCB, would it be appropriate to 
refer the complaint to the TCB that issued the registration? If these 
alternative dispute resolution procedures do not resolve the complaint, 
the complainant may then petition the Commission under the applicable 
complaint procedures.

Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

    14. The matter in CC Docket No. 99-216, initiated by this NPRM, 
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance 
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte 
presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations 
must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not 
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two 
sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally 
required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are 
set forth in the rules as well.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    15. The following is a summary of the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) created for the Notice. See 5 U.S.C. 603. 
The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract 
With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 
(1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The Commission has prepared 
this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies 
and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Written 
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified 
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for 
comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission will send 
a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 
See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. 
See id.
    16. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. This Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking is a significant step forward in the Commission's 
initiative to largely privatize the process by which technical criteria 
are established for customer premises equipment (CPE or terminal 
equipment) that may be sold for connection to the public switched 
telephone network (PSTN), and for the registration of such equipment. 
The proposals in this Notice largely are based on the consensus 
positions of the participants in a series of industry forums the 
Commission held in July 1999 to explore the extent to which regulations 
in part 68, other than the HAC/VC rules, may no longer be necessary. 
The majority of commenters and forum participants generally argued 
that: (a) Carriers' networks must be protected; (b) one uniform set of 
national technical standards is necessary; (c) there are few, if any, 
unnecessary technical requirements in Part 68 at present; (d) the 
Commission should retain the authority to ensure that the telephone 
network is protected;

[[Page 34632]]

and (e) the functions of technical criteria development, laboratory 
qualification, and registration of equipment, currently performed by 
the Commission, largely can be privatized.
    17. In this Notice, the Commission proposes that the new part 68 
would contain no detailed technical criteria for protection of the 
network, no descriptions and schematics of connectors, and none of the 
existing rules that pertain to application by manufacturers and 
importers directly to the Commission for equipment registration. The 
Commission proposes, in place of these rules, that local exchange 
carriers must permit connection to the PSTN of any CPE that meets the 
technical criteria set by an industry standards body or bodies. This 
Notice proposes alternative ways that the determination might be made 
whether a piece of CPE meets the industry's criteria, including 
certification by a telecommunications certification body (TCB) and 
self-certification by the manufacturer. Both the industry's technical 
criteria and the certification of individual CPE would be subject to a 
Commission de novo review or enforcement process. While the industry 
would make its determinations regarding technical criteria under the 
guidance of the Commission's policies and regulations, its technical 
criteria would not be binding on the Commission in the event of de novo 
review or enforcement. The industry's administration activity would 
assist us in the implementation of the Commission's objectives to 
permit connection of CPE to the PSTN without causing harm, but the 
industry standards body or bodies would not determine the final outcome 
of technical criteria matters. Therefore, as administrator of its 
technical criteria program governing the prevention of harm to the 
PSTN, the industry standards body or bodies would not be performing a 
Commission policy function. Although the proposals, to transfer the 
responsibility for the development and maintenance of CPE technical 
criteria from this Commission to an industry body subject to de novo 
review or enforcement, represent a new paradigm for part 68 regulation, 
this procedure is in fact a logical progression of the Commission's 
historic regulation of CPE and is similar to other deregulatory 
initiatives the Commission has used.
    18. In addition, the Commission proposes to largely privatize 
equipment registration by devolving this function, currently performed 
solely by this Commission, to Telecommunications Certification Bodies 
(TCBs), which the Commission has previously established to streamline 
and privatize some of the regulatory processes. TCBs would use the 
technical criteria developed by industry to determine whether equipment 
meets the requirements for registration. The Commission also proposes 
to establish new procedures for manufacturer self-declaration of 
conformity or verification pursuant to the technical criteria, and the 
Commission requests comment on the details pertaining to these options. 
Thus, under the proposed new rules for part 68, if CPE meets the 
technical criteria, and if it is registered pursuant to the new 
privatized registration rules, then wireline telephone companies must 
permit the equipment to be connected to the PSTN.
    19. Legal Basis. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
Commission tentatively concludes that the Commission has the necessary 
statutory authority to adjust the part 68 program as proposed herein. 
For example, the proposed changes are entirely in furtherance of the 
Commission's statutory mission ``to make available . . . a rapid, 
efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communications 
service with adequate facilities. . . . 47 U.S.C. 151; see also North 
Carolina Utilities Commission v. FCC, 537 F.2d 787, 793-94 (4th Cir. 
1976). Further, the proposed changes are justified, at least in part, 
on the basis of the same statutory authority which was relied upon in 
1975 when the part 68 program was originally implemented, e.g., 
sections 4(i), 4(j), and 201-205. Finally, as noted previously, the 
proposed changes, if adopted, will further the competitive goals of the 
1996 Act.
    20. The proposal herein is further supported by the past regulatory 
framework for part 68. The part 68 First Report and Order stressed that 
the Commission's guiding objective for competitive CPE registration is 
that it would remain ``simple and easy to administer as is reasonably 
possible with a minimum of government intervention.'' The Commission's 
goals were to produce an absolute minimum of expense to both the 
government and private industry, to the benefit of the ultimate 
consumer, while at the same time protecting the PSTN from harms that 
could be caused by the connection of faulty terminal equipment. 
Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concludes in this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking that, in view of the changes in the industry and 
the market for CPE over the past twenty-five years, the key objectives 
that led to the original adoption of the part 68 program can better be 
served through a different mix of government and private industry 
involvement.
    21. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To 
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to 
provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the 
number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if 
adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business concern'' 
under section 3 of the Small Business Act. Id. 601(3). A small business 
concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the SBA. Id. 632.
    22. RFA analyses and certifications need only address the impact of 
rules on small entities directly regulated by those rules, Mid-Tex 
Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342-43 (D.C. Cir. 
1985). The Commission's equipment authorization rules directly regulate 
only manufacturers of equipment, which must satisfy the Commission's 
product approval requirements. Small test laboratories are not directly 
regulated by the proposed Commission rules. Thus, to the extent that 
any testing laboratories would be affected by these proposed rules, 
such entities are not addressed in this IRFA.
    23. The Commission has not developed a definition of small 
manufacturers of telephone terminal equipment. The closest applicable 
definitions under SBA rules is for manufacturers of telephone and 
telegraph apparatus (SIC 3661), which defines a small manufacturer as 
one having 1,000 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201, Standard 
Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 3661.
    24. According to 1992 Census Bureau data, there were 479 such 
manufacturers, and of those, 436 had 999 or fewer employees, and seven 
had between 1,000 and 1,499 employees. 1992 Economic Census, Industry 
and Employment Size of Firm, Table 1D (prepared by U.S. Census Bureau 
under contract to the U.S. Small Business Administration). The 
Commission estimates that there are fewer than 443 small manufacturers 
of terminal equipment that may be affected by the proposed rules.
    25. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. The Commission is proposing to remove the 
requirement that applicants for

[[Page 34633]]

equipment authorization apply to the Commission, and instead propose 
that they apply to designated Telecommunications Certification Bodies. 
The Commission is proposing that instead of submitting part 68 
application information to the Commission, the TCBs would be required 
to submit the data to a nationwide database instead, which shall be 
administered by a private entity. The Commission is also proposing to 
offer responsible parties the option to use either a Self-Declaration 
of Conformity or a verification process for equipment authorization. 
Such parties would have to submit data concerning their equipment to a 
nationwide database.
    26. Further, the Commission is proposing to privatize development 
and maintenance of technical criteria for terminal equipment, other 
than those technical criteria required for compliance with the HAC/VC 
and consumer protection rules, which the Commission proposes to retain. 
Small entities with an interest in the development, interpretation, and 
waiver of such technical criteria would be required to seek the ruling 
of the standard development organization responsible for the standard 
at issue in the first instance. The Commission, however, proposes to 
retain full de novo review procedures for any industry decision.
    27. The Commission also proposes to require that certain 
information regarding the equipment authorized under part 68 would be 
placed into a publicly available database. This information would be 
available for review of technical parameters of specific equipment, 
including parameters required for compliance with hearing aid 
compatibility, volume control, and other HAC/VC requirements. This 
requirement would not be a new information requirement since 
application data is currently required and kept in a Commission 
database.
    28. Finally, the Commission proposes to unify the numbering system 
and the logo that must be imprinted on customer premises equipment. 
Currently, part 15 and part 68 have different labeling and different 
registration numbering systems.
    29. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an 
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or 
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting 
requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of 
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    30. The proposals in this Notice are designed to reduce the length 
of time for new technology to reach the market. This may benefit small 
entities especially because the proposals would cut any manufacturer's 
cost to bring an equipment design to market. Alternatives for making 
these reductions are included in the form of options for different 
methods of (1) industry development and maintenance of technical 
standards and (2) equipment registration. The Commission requests 
comment on these options.
    31. The Commission requests comment on whether small entities would 
be adversely affected by the proposals herein, particularly whether the 
proposed enforcement procedures or any of the proposed options for 
establishing technical criteria would have a significant economic 
impact. The Commission believes that the proposals would have either no 
impact, or would reduce, any economic burdens on small entities.
    32. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules. None.

C. Comment Filing Procedures

    33. Interested parties may file comments on or before June 23, 2000 
and reply comments on or before July 7, 2000. Parties must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to 
the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, 
Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 
copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 
68 FR 24,121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an 
electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be 
filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include 
their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable 
docket number, CC Docket No. 99-216.
    34. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections on or before 
July 31, 2000. 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 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the 
Internet to [email protected] and to Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 
Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the 
Internet to [email protected].
    35. Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in 
this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20036. Comments and reply comments will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 68

    Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common 
carriers, Communications equipment, Labeling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13588 Filed 5-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P