[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34603-34607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16371]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 36 and 54

[CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 00-256, FCC 01-157]


Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Multi-Association 
Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Further notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission declines, at this time, to 
adopt the Rural Task Force's proposal to freeze per-line support in 
rural carrier study areas in which a competitive eligible 
telecommunications carrier is providing service; however, the 
Commission recognizes that excessive fund growth may occur during this 
five-year plan. To develop the record on this issue more fully, the 
Commission invites interested parties to propose possible alternative 
measures that may be appropriate to address this issue. The Commission 
also invites commenters to address the likelihood that such measures 
may be necessary to prevent excessive fund growth during the five-year 
period.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 30, 2001. Reply comments are 
due on or before August 28, 2001. Written comments by the public on the 
proposed information collections discussed in this Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking are due on or before July 30, 2001. Written 
comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
on the proposed information collections on or before August 28, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original 
and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must 
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie 
Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 
filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the 
information collection(s) 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, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genaro Fullano, Paul Garnett, or Greg 
Guice, Attorney, Common Carrier Bureau, Accounting Policy Division, 
(202) 418-7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

[[Page 34604]]

(FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96-45 released on May 23, 2001. The full text 
of this document is available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This FNPRM contains proposed 
information collection(s) 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 
information collections contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The FNPRM contains a proposed information collection. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the 
information collection(s) contained in this FNPRM, as required by the 
PRA, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments on the proposed 
information collections discussed in this FNPRM are due on or before 
July 30, 2001. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections on 
or before August 28, 2001.
    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: None.
    Title: Proposed Alternatives for the Rural Task Force's Proposal to 
Freeze High Cost Loop Support Upon Competitive Entry in Rural Carrier 
Study Areas (FNPRM).
    Form No.: None.
    Type of Review: Proposed New Collections.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    No. of       Est. time per     Total annual
                            Title                                respondents    response  (hrs)       burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting of Working Loops at Cost-Zone Level................               9               20              720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Burden: 720.
    Cost to Respondents: $0.
    Needs and Uses: In addition to information already required by 
Sec. 54.307 of the Commission's rules, competitive eligible 
telecommunications carriers serving loops in the service area of a 
rural incumbent local exchange carrier, as that term is defined by 
Sec. 54.5 of the Commission's rules, would be required to separately 
report the number of captured and new loops in the service area 
disaggregated by cost zone if disaggregation zones have been 
established within the service area pursuant to Sec. 54.315 of the 
Commission's rules. The frequency of reporting also may be impacted by 
conclusions reached in this proceeding. For purposes of this Paperwork 
Reduction Act analysis, we assume that competitive eligible 
telecommunications carriers would continue to be required to submit 
such data on a quarterly basis. Such reporting would be a modification 
to the current reporting requirement. The goal of this proposal is to 
ensure that per-line high-cost. The Commission also intends to consider 
alternatives that do not involve additional reporting requirements.

Synopsis of FNPRM

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Background

    1. As discussed in greater detail in the companion Order, 66 FR 
30080, June 5, 2001, we decline at this time to adopt the Rural Task 
Force's proposal to freeze high-cost loop support on a per-line basis 
in rural carrier study areas where a competitive eligible 
telecommunications carrier initiates service. The purpose of the 
proposal was to prevent excessive growth in the universal service fund 
as a result of the entrance of competitive eligible telecommunications 
carriers in rural carrier study areas over the life of the five-year 
plan we adopt here. As discussed in the companion Order, support 
provided to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers is not 
subject to the overall cap on the high-cost loop fund. During the five-
year period, excessive growth in the fund is thus possible if incumbent 
carriers lose many lines to competitive eligible telecommunications 
carriers, or if competitive eligible telecommunications carriers add a 
significant number of lines. The first scenario raises particular fund 
growth concerns because as an incumbent ``loses'' lines to a 
competitive eligible telecommunications carrier, the incumbent must 
recover its fixed costs from fewer lines, thus increasing its per-line 
costs. With higher per-line costs, the incumbent would receive greater 
per-line support, which would also be available to the competitive 
eligible telecommunications carrier for each of the lines that it 
serves. Thus, a substantial loss of an incumbent's lines to a 
competitive eligible telecommunications carrier could result in 
excessive fund growth.
    2. We base our decision not to adopt the Rural Task Force's 
proposal at this time on several concerns. First, the proposal may be 
of limited benefit in serving its intended purpose and may, in some 
instances, contribute to fund growth by freezing support at higher 
levels than would be warranted in the future. Second, the likelihood of 
a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier capturing a 
substantial percentage of lines from the incumbent during the five-year 
period is speculative. Third, the indexed cap on the high-cost loop 
fund will operate as a check on excessive fund growth to a certain 
extent. Fourth, we are concerned that the proposal may have the 
unintended consequence of discouraging efficient investment in rural 
infrastructure. Fifth, the proposal may hinder the competitive entry in 
rural study areas by creating an additional incentive for incumbents to 
oppose the designation of eligible telecommunications carriers in rural 
study areas. Finally, we are concerned that the proposal would require 
complex and administratively burdensome regulations to implement.

B. Issues for Comment

    3. Although we decline, at this time, to adopt the Rural Task 
Force's proposal to freeze per-line support in rural carrier study 
areas in which a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier is 
providing service, we recognize that

[[Page 34605]]

excessive fund growth may occur during this five-year plan. We note 
that the indexed cap on high-cost loop support would not check this 
growth fully, because support received by competitive carriers 
currently is not included within the cap. To develop the record on this 
issue more fully, we invite interested parties to propose possible 
alternative measures that may be appropriate to address this issue. We 
also invite commenters to address the likelihood that such measures may 
be necessary to prevent excessive fund growth during the five-year 
period.
    4. One possible approach suggested by commenters would be to freeze 
support only when a competitive carrier serves a specific percentage of 
the total lines within a study area. Under this approach, the 
Commission would adopt a threshold percentage of lines lost for 
triggering the freeze. As discussed, however, a simple threshold 
requirement would fail to target study areas where the excessive fund 
growth is most likely to occur, because it could not distinguish 
captured from new subscriber lines. With regard to any proposal to 
freeze support, commenters should address whether support should be 
frozen for the study area, the competitor's service area, or the 
incumbent's specific disaggregation zone. We also invite commenters to 
propose other alternatives. Commenters should address the 
administrative feasibility of any such proposals, and whether they are 
consistent with the principles of encouraging investment in rural 
infrastructure and promoting competitive entry.
    5. Although we are not convinced of the likelihood of excessive 
fund growth due to competitive entry in high-cost areas during the life 
of this five-year plan, we intend to resolve the issues raised in this 
FNPRM expeditiously after we have developed the record more fully. In 
the meantime, as discussed, we intend to closely monitor the impact of 
competitive entry in rural carrier study areas to ensure that excessive 
fund growth does not occur, consistent with our obligation in section 
254 to maintain a specific, predictable, and sufficient universal 
service fund.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    6. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by 
the policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM. Written public comments 
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to 
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines, and should have a separate 
and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The 
Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
1. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules
    7. In the Order accompanying this FNPRM, we modify the rural high-
cost mechanism. While we declined to adopt the Rural Task Force's 
proposal to freeze per-line support in rural carrier study areas in 
which a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier is providing 
service, we recognized that excessive fund growth may occur during the 
five-year duration of the interim plan. We noted that the indexed cap 
on high-cost loop support would not check this growth fully, because 
support received by competitive carriers is not included within the 
cap. To develop the record on this issue more fully, we issue this 
FNPRM and invite interested parties to propose possible alternative 
measures that may be appropriate to address this issue. We also invite 
commenters to address the likelihood that such measures may be 
necessary to prevent excessive fund growth during the five-year period.
    8. Although we are not convinced of the likelihood of excessive 
fund growth due to competitive entry in high-cost areas during the life 
of this five-year plan, we intend to resolve the issues raised in this 
FNPRM expeditiously after we have developed the record more fully.
2. Legal Basis
    9. The legal basis as proposed for this FNPRM is contained in 
sections 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 
1934 (as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996).
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply
    10. 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 adopted herein. The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business 
concern'' is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional 
criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
    11. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in 
this RFA analysis. As noted, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer 
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The 
SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of 
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We 
have therefore included small incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis, 
although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on the 
Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    12. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small providers of local exchange services. 
The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone 
communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies. According to the most recent Trends Report data, 1,335 
incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
local exchange services. We do not have data specifying the number of 
these carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations, 
are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 
employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater 
precision the number of local exchange carriers that would qualify as 
small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Of the 1,335 
incumbent carriers, 13 entities are price cap carriers that are not 
subject to these rules. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,322 
providers of local exchange service are small entities or small 
incumbent local exchange carriers that may be affected.
    13. Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically 
applicable to competitive access services providers (CAPs). The closest 
applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone 
communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies. According to the most recent Trends Report data, 349 CAPs/

[[Page 34606]]

competitive local exchange carriers and 60 other local exchange 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
competitive local exchange services. We do not have data specifying the 
number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, 
or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of CAPs that would qualify 
as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we 
estimate that there are less than 349 small entity CAPs and 60 other 
local exchange carriers that may be affected.
    14. Cellular Licensees. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular 
licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the 
definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone 
company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau 
of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms from a total of 1,178 
such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. 
Therefore, even if all twelve of these firms were cellular telephone 
companies, nearly all cellular carriers were small businesses under the 
SBA's definition. In addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular 
licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several licenses. In 
addition, according to the most recent Telecommunications Industry 
Revenue data, 806 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of either cellular service or Personal Communications Service 
(PCS) services, which are placed together in the data. We do not have 
data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently 
owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are 
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of 
cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns 
under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are 
fewer than 808 small cellular service carriers that may be affected.
    15. Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS). The broadband 
PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through 
F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission 
defined ``small entity'' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has 
average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous 
calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for ``very 
small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, together 
with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 
million for the preceding three calendar years. These regulations 
defining ``small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS auctions have 
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved 
definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 
90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C 
auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won 
approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. 
Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small 
broadband PCS licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and 
the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 
small entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's 
auction rules.
    16. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a 
definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is 
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS). We will use the 
SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an 
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 
1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate 
that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA's 
definition.
    17. Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR). The Commission awards bidding 
credits in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR 
licenses to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each 
of the three previous calendar years. In the context of both the 800 
MHz and 900 MHz SMR, a definition of ``small entity'' has been approved 
by the SBA.
    18. These fees apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 
bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained 
extended implementation authorizations. We do not know how many firms 
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to 
extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers 
have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 
million in revenues. We assume, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of 
the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held 
by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.
    19. For geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band, there are 
60 who qualified as small entities. For the 800 MHz SMR's, 38 are small 
or very small entities.
    20. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common 
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 
services. At present, there are approximately 22,015 common carrier 
fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and 
broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The 
Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to 
microwave services. For purposes of this IRFA, we utilize the SBA's 
definition applicable to radiotelephone companies--i.e., an entity with 
no more than 1,500 persons. We estimate, for this purpose, that all of 
the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) 
would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition for 
radiotelephone companies.
    21. 39 GHz Licensees. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition of small entities applicable to 39 GHz 
licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the 
definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone 
company employing no more than 1,500 persons. For purposes of the 39 
GHz license auction, the Commission defined ``small entity'' as an 
entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the 
three previous calendar years, and ``very small entity'' as an entity 
that has average gross revenues of not more that $15 million for the 
preceding three calendar years. The Commission has granted licenses to 
29 service providers in the 39 GHz service. We do not have data 
specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently 
owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are 
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of 39 
GHz licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the 
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are no more than 
29 39 GHz small business providers that may be affected.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    22. In the Order accompanying this FNPRM, the Commission revised 
the reporting frequency of line count data in study areas where 
competitive entry has occurred. Prior to the Order's adoption, rural 
carriers were required to submit line count data annually. The 
Commission determined that the more frequent reporting requirement was

[[Page 34607]]

necessary to ensure that only one carrier receives support for each 
line served and to monitor the concerns expressed by the Rural Task 
Force with regard to the potential impact of competitive entry in rural 
carrier study areas. The line count data submitted by carriers on a 
quarterly basis under the Order should be sufficient for the Commission 
to implement any change it may adopt pursuant to this FNPRM; however, 
the issues of frequency of reporting and timing of submission may need 
to be revisited for implementation purposes.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    23. 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 (among others): (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.
    24. Here, we have declined at this time to freeze per-line support 
in rural carriers' study areas in which a competitive eligible 
telecommunications carrier is providing service. Had we adopted the 
alternative of the freeze, we would, we believe, have also needed to 
adopt, e.g., complex and administratively burdensome implementing 
regulations. By seeking additional comments on this issue, including 
comment from small entities regarding significant alternatives, we hope 
to identify alternatives that would include simpler reporting or other 
compliance requirements. Thus, the FNPRM under consideration herein 
seeks to determine possible alternative measures that may be 
appropriate to address the issue of excessive fund growth that may 
result from competitive entry in rural study areas. We invite comment 
on how any alternatives proposed would be likely to affect small 
businesses.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules
    25. None.

B. Ex Parte

    26. This is a non-restricted FNPRM and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the 
Commission's rules.

C. Comment Filing Procedures

    27. Pursuant to Secs. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
interested parties may file comments on or before July 30, 2001, and 
reply comments on or before August 28, 2001. Comments may be filed 
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by 
filing paper copies.
    28. 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. If 
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of 
the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the 
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should 
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for 
e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and 
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get 
form your e-mail address>.'' A sample form and directions will be sent 
in reply. Parties should also send three paper copies of their filings 
to Sheryl Todd, Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room 5-
B540, Washington, DC 20554. Parties who choose to file by paper should 
also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes should be 
submitted to Sheryl Todd, Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Room 5-B540, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, commenters must send 
diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20037.

III. Ordering Clauses

    29. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 
201-205, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-45 is 
adopted.
    30. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-45, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 36

    Jurisdictional separations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

47 CFR Part 54

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, 
Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-16371 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P