[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48406-48410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23495]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 69

[CC Docket No. 01-174; FCC 01-218]


2000 Biennial Regulatory Review--Requirements Governing the NECA 
Board of Directors and Requirements for the Computation of Average 
Schedule Company Payments

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; comments requested.

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

SUMMARY: In this document the Commission is seeking comment on certain 
of our rules pertaining to the National Exchange Carrier Association 
(NECA). In particular, we propose to eliminate the annual election 
requirements for NECA's board of directors. We also propose to 
streamline the average schedule formula process. Our goal in this 
proceeding is to eliminate rules that may no longer be necessary in the 
public interest, reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on the industry, 
including small entities, and update our rules and processes with 
measures that are more appropriate in today's marketplace.

DATES: Written comments by the public are due on or before October 22, 
2001, reply comments are due on or before November 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission 445-12th Street, SW, TW-
A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Stone, Accounting Safeguards 
Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-0816 or Andrew Mulitz, 
Accounting Safeguards Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-
0827.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), CC Docket No. 01-174, FCC 01-218, 
adopted July 31, 2001 and released August 31, 2001. In this NPRM, we 
seek comment on certain of our rules pertaining to the NECA. In 1983, 
the Commission adopted rules providing for an exchange carrier 
association to administer access tariffs and to establish and operate a 
high cost fund. Beginning in 1984, all local exchange carriers 
participated in a mandatory common line tariff, and most participated 
in a traffic sensitive tariff. For each of these tariffs, the exchange 
carrier association, NECA, operates pooling mechanisms to collect and 
distribute revenues among its participating carriers. At that time, the 
Commission adopted rules relating to the governance and functioning of 
NECA. As part of our 2000 biennial regulatory review process, we now 
re-examine these rules in light of today's marketplace. In particular, 
we propose to eliminate the annual election requirements for NECA's 
board of directors under Sec. 69.602 and seek comment on whether other 
measures, such as staggered terms and term limits are necessary. We 
also propose to streamline the average schedule formula process under 
Sec. 69.606. Our goal in this proceeding is to eliminate rules that may 
no longer be necessary in the public interest, reduce unnecessary 
regulatory burdens on the industry, including small entities, and 
update our rules and processes with measures that are more appropriate 
in today's marketplace. We seek comment on the extent to which these 
proposals will achieve this goal.

I. Board of Directors

    Today, all ILECs, regardless of size, are members of NECA. 
Membership in NECA is grouped into three divisions or subsets: Bell 
Operating Companies (Subset 1); other carriers with annual revenues of 
$40 million or more (Subset 2); and all remaining carriers (Subset 3). 
Each of the subsets is represented on NECA's 15-member board of 
directors, which governs the Association. The 15-member board is 
composed of 10 ILEC representatives--two from Subset 1, two from Subset 
2, and six from Subset 3--and five directors from outside the 
telecommunications industry representing all three subsets (outside 
directors). Each subset nominates and elects its own representatives 
and outside directors are elected by the entire NECA membership. As 
required under our rules, all board members are selected through an 
annual election and serve a term of one year.
    NECA proposes that the Commission revise Secs. 69.602(e) and 
69.602(f) to provide for periodic elections for the board of directors, 
instead of annual elections. In addition, NECA proposes eliminating 
Sec. 69.602(i), which specifies that directors shall serve one-year 
terms. We seek comment on NECA's proposals and on the specific benefits 
that changes to the annual election requirement and one-year term limit 
for board members would provide to ILEC members. Commenters should 
discuss whether the elimination of the annual election requirements 
would have any impact on adequate representation of the member 
companies and should also address the appropriate length of the board 
members' term and whether term limits should be specified in our rules. 
We note that under our rules, we have adopted a three-year term for 
directors that serve on the board of USAC, NECA's independent 
subsidiary. Would a similar term appointment be appropriate for NECA 
board members? We also seek comment on alternative proposals that may 
be appropriate to consider at this time. For instance, would staggered 
terms, which would provide that the entire board would not run for 
election at the same time, be appropriate, and if so, does this 
alternative sufficiently address the cost burdens that NECA identified 
as being associated with annual elections?

II. Average Schedule Formulas

A. NECA's Historical Role and the Changing Regulatory Environment

    NECA was established, and continues today, to develop and file 
interstate access tariffs and to administer interstate access revenue 
pools. In the initial years following the Commission's adoption of 
uniform access charge rules, all ILECs were subject to rate-of-return 
regulation, and all ILECs were required to participate in NECA's access 
tariff and common line pooling process. Under our access charge rules, 
ILECs were compensated either on the basis of their costs or under 
average schedules, which were permitted for some carriers as a way to 
avoid imposing the burdens and costs associated with performing cost 
separations studies needed to determine access charges. From a 
regulatory perspective, the access charge model sought to ensure that 
ILECs charged customers an amount that covered their interstate costs, 
assessed charges through cost-causative rate

[[Page 48407]]

elements that reflected the structure of the access network, and 
provided a reasonable return on their interstate investment.
    Over the years, fundamental changes have occurred in the regulatory 
regime that governs access charges and tariff obligations, including 
the mandatory requirement that all ILECs participate in NECA's access 
tariff and common line pooling process. While allowing rate-of-return 
regulation to continue for some ILECs, our regulatory model governing 
access charges changed significantly in 1991, particularly with the 
adoption of price caps for the largest ILECs. The 1996 Act called for 
further reforms. Today, our regulatory concern is focused on providing 
sufficient incentives for ILECs to become more efficient, eliminating 
implicit subsidies, and aligning access charge rate structure 
components with cost-causation principles. Today, none of the largest 
ILECs participates in NECA's access tariff and pooling process. These 
ILECs instead charge access rates pursuant to the CALLS Order, FR 65 
57739 (September, 26, 2000). Many ILECs that remain subject to rate-of-
return rules have also elected not to participate in NECA's tariff and 
pooling process, but file their own access tariffs. Moreover, the 
Commission has sought comment on measures to reform the current access 
charge policies and adopt optional incentive regulation for rate-of-
return carriers, as detailed in a proposal submitted by the Multi-
Association Group (MAG Plan).
    Our tariff requirements have changed as well. For all ILECs that 
file tariffs, we have engaged in continuous efforts to review, revise, 
and update rules to make our processes more streamlined. Today, ILEC 
tariffs are no longer subject to the filing and approval requirements 
that were in place in 1983, but are subject to abbreviated review and 
effective date periods of either 7 or 15 days. In addition, as the 
Federal-State Joint Board on Separations continues its efforts to bring 
about comprehensive reform of the jurisdictional separations rules, the 
Commission has simplified the separations process by adopting a five-
year interim freeze of the Part 36 category relationships and 
allocation factors for price cap carriers and a five-year interim 
freeze of allocation factors for rate-of-return carriers. The 
separations freeze will provide substantial regulatory relief to all 
ILECs that must separate costs between interstate and intrastate 
jurisdictions until separations reform is completed.
    Our reforms and various other streamlining measures have generally 
applied to price cap LECs and have been aimed at providing the ILECs 
with greater flexibility to set interstate access rates and to enable 
ILECs to compete more efficiently as competition develops, gradually 
replacing regulation with competition as the primary means of setting 
prices. Further streamlining and elimination of regulations will occur 
as competitive market forces emerge.
    NECA's joint tariff and settlement process, however, has not been 
subject to the reform and streamlining measures that have taken place 
for the access charge and tariff requirements of the largest ILECs and 
other ILECs that file outside the NECA process. Currently, 
approximately 1,240 ILECs, consisting of about 700 cost companies and 
about 540 average schedule companies, continue to participate in NECA's 
tariff and settlement process. We recognize that over the years NECA's 
pooling process has provided ILECs with an efficient and streamlined 
alternative to individual tariff filings, and continues today to 
provide benefits to participating ILECs, particularly the small and 
rural ILECs. We believe, however, that review of our rules and the 
long-standing practices surrounding NECA's tariff and settlement 
process for average schedule companies is appropriate and necessary at 
this time. Our goal is to eliminate unnecessary and complex 
requirements affecting carriers that may no longer be in the public 
interest. As discussed further, our review of NECA's tariff and 
settlement process in this proceeding examines whether certain rules 
and practices applicable to the average schedule process continue to be 
necessary, and whether there may be alternative measures that are more 
appropriate in today's environment.

B. NECA's Current Tariff Development and Settlement Process

    Under NECA's current access tariff and settlement process, NECA 
collects data from participating ILECs to develop the interstate access 
tariff rates. These tariff rates reflect the actual interstate costs of 
cost companies and the estimated interstate costs of the average 
schedule companies. Data collected from cost companies include detailed 
cost studies that determine jurisdictional separations and cost 
allocations. Data collected from average schedule companies do not 
include such detailed cost studies. Rather, NECA uses interstate 
factors derived from the cost companies to estimate interstate costs 
for average schedule companies. ILECs participating in NECA's access 
tariffs charge interexchange carriers (IXCs) for access at the rates 
set out in NECA's tariff. NECA pools the interstate access revenues 
collected by participating ILECs, and, through the settlement process, 
distributes compensation among pool members. Cost companies receive 
compensation for the use of their facilities in originating and 
terminating interstate common carrier communications services on the 
basis of their actual interstate costs, including a return on 
investment. Average schedule companies receive compensation for the use 
of their facilities on the basis of average schedules formulas, which 
are developed by NECA and established, in part, by using estimated 
costs derived from cost companies.
    Resources devoted both by NECA and by the Commission to average 
schedule formulas may be disproportionate, particularly given the fact 
that average schedule companies' billed access charges and settlement 
revenues represent a relatively small component of the NECA pools. 
Moreover, NECA's current process for developing average schedule 
formulas may be unnecessarily complex in light of our extensive reform 
and simplification efforts for the largest ILECs and for ILECs that 
file outside the NECA process. We find it is appropriate to examine the 
requirements and practices pertaining to NECA's tariff and settlement 
process for average schedule companies and seek comment on various 
reform and simplification measures. As discussed further, we seek 
comment on both the manner in which NECA develops its average schedule 
formulas, and consequently our review and approval process of NECA's 
proposed formula modifications.
(1) Computation of Average Schedule Company Payments Through Average 
Schedule Formulas
    The rule governing the development of average schedule formulas is 
broadly stated in Sec. 69.606(a). NECA must develop formulas designed 
``to produce disbursements to an average schedule company that simulate 
the disbursements that would be received * * * by a [cost] company that 
is representative of average schedule companies.'' The rule provides 
NECA with flexibility on how to develop these formulas. NECA has chosen 
to implement the rule through a process that involves extensive data 
collection and detailed analysis of cost company data, statistical 
sampling of average schedule company data, and regression and related 
statistical estimations. Currently, NECA develops ten separate average 
schedule formulas for use in its access tariffs and two average 
schedule

[[Page 48408]]

formulas for obtaining support from the Universal Service Fund (USF).
    NECA's average schedule formula development process includes the 
following steps: (1) Collection of cost accounting data, including 
jurisdictional separations cost data and demand data (e.g., access line 
counts, number of exchanges, access minutes) from a sample of cost 
companies; (2) determination of jurisdictional cost relationships for 
the sample cost companies; (3) collection of certain accounting cost 
data and demand data from a sample of average schedule companies; (4) 
application of the cost relationships determined in Step 2 to the 
sample average schedule companies to estimate jurisdictional costs for 
the sample average schedule companies; (5) development of mathematical 
models using Steps 3 and 4 to determine estimated interstate costs for 
the sample average schedule companies; (6) use of statistical 
regression techniques to develop formulas that relate estimated 
interstate costs of the average schedule company to various commonly-
used demand units (e.g., access lines per exchange); (7) development of 
settlement formulas using Step 5; and (8) adjustment for projected 
changes in costs and demand.
    The Commission does not mandate the formula development process, 
but rather it is the process that NECA has chosen to use to meet the 
requirements of Sec. 69.606(a) of our rules. Each year NECA engages in 
this process to determine whether to propose revisions to the current 
average schedule formulas. Consequently, each year but one NECA has 
filed proposed revisions with the Commission that consist of 
complicated, detailed, and extensive formula computations. This process 
is costly for NECA, interested parties that participate in the review 
of NECA's proposals, and the Commission. The current process clearly is 
not commensurate with our access charge reforms and streamlining 
measures for the largest ILECs, and we believe that a more streamlined 
approach is warranted.
    Initially, we note that the premise of the entire rule governing 
the average schedule process is rate-of-return regulation. The 
Commission has long abandoned rate-of-return regulation for incentive 
regulation for the largest ILECs and now has under consideration the 
MAG Plan for non-price cap ILECs, which proposes to provide these 
carriers with the option to elect incentive regulation and thereby 
leave rate-of-return and average schedule regulatory models altogether. 
In light of such reform effort, we seek comment on whether and how 
Sec. 69.606(a) should be modified. Our long-term goal is to get out of 
the business of rate regulation of ILECs where competitive market 
forces make regulatory oversight unnecessary. Recognizing, however, 
that transition will occur over a period of time, and that for the 
foreseeable future, certain carriers may remain average-schedule 
carriers, how can we modify the existing rule to better reflect today's 
marketplace? In particular, as long as some companies remain on average 
schedules, is there a simpler but fair way to determine payments for 
these companies? Should the Commission continue to require that 
disbursements simulate the disbursements that would be received by a 
cost company representative of the average schedule companies? Should 
the similar disbursement language in Sec. 69.606(a) be eliminated or 
revised to reflect some measure other than cost, such as, inflation, 
line growth, or network utilization? What are the benefits of such 
modifications?
    We seek comment on several options to streamline the manner in 
which the average schedule formulas are developed by NECA. The 
Commission recently froze for five years the separations allocation 
factors for all carriers and gave rate-of-return carriers the option of 
electing to freeze their separations category relationships as well. In 
light of this freeze, the first step of NECA's current formula 
development process already will be streamlined, because NECA no longer 
will need to determine on a yearly basis the separations allocation 
factors from a sample of cost companies. One measure that would further 
simplify the formula development process would be to utilize the cost 
relationships from a sample of cost companies for a baseline year in 
developing formulas for average schedule companies in future years. The 
net effect of the newly adopted separations freeze and this proposal 
would be to eliminate the need to examine on a yearly basis the 
jurisdictional cost relationships for the sample of cost companies; the 
relationships and ratios derived from the baseline year would be used 
to develop formulas for average schedule company payments in future 
years. This would eliminate much of the first and second step of NECA's 
current process to develop average schedule formulas, as previously 
described.
    A second option would be for NECA to use the current approved 
average schedule formula structures in developing specific formulas for 
payments to average schedule companies in future years. This option 
would further streamline the formula development process by making it 
unnecessary for NECA to develop mathematical models to estimate the 
costs of average schedule companies, effectively eliminating the fifth 
step of the process currently used by NECA.
    A third option would be for NECA to utilize the current formula 
structures and coefficients in developing formulas in future years for 
payments to average schedule companies. This option would significantly 
simplify NECA's current formula development process, essentially 
placing a freeze on the current formula methodologies. As a result, 
NECA would no longer need to conduct regression analysis to develop 
formulas that relate company costs to commonly-used demand units, 
thereby effectively eliminating the sixth step of the process currently 
used by NECA.
    If formula structures or formula coefficients were frozen in some 
fashion, there may be a need periodically to make adjustments to the 
existing formulas to reflect more global changes in the marketplace. If 
formulas were frozen in some fashion, would it be appropriate to 
require, or permit, NECA periodically to re-evaluate the formulas to 
take into account general trends in inflation, cost, demand growth, or 
network underutilization? If so, what specific time frame would be 
appropriate for re-evaluation of aspects of the current formulas?
    We seek comments on these proposed options and other alternatives. 
Will relevant trends in demand growth and inflation provide a 
sufficient basis for reasonable changes in payment amounts? We note 
that any carrier that believes the average schedule formulas do not 
produce disbursements appropriate to its circumstances is free, under 
our existing rules, to settle with NECA based on its actual costs. 
Should average schedule company productivity factors be considered? 
Could the proposed options be implemented in conjunction with access 
reform for rate-of-return carriers? What implications do the proposed 
options have on interstate access charges in rural and small exchanges? 
How best can the Commission be assured that average schedule formulas 
result in appropriate interstate rates in areas where marketplace 
competition has not developed? Is a different method required if 
competition exists in a given area? If so, what should that method be?
(2) Commission Review and Approval Cycle
    Pursuant to Sec. 69.606(a), payments to average schedule companies 
are made ``in accordance with a formula approved

[[Page 48409]]

or modified by the Commission.'' As required under Sec. 69.606(b), NECA 
either files its proposed revisions for average schedule formulas on or 
before December 31 of each year, or certifies that no revisions are 
necessary. Once received, the Commission places NECA's filing on public 
notice and seeks comment from interested parties. Generally, the 
Commission's review of NECA's annual average schedule formula filing is 
complete and an order is issued approving or modifying NECA's proposed 
formulas before the effective date of NECA's annual access tariffs on 
July 1. NECA's annual tariffs are based, in part, on the average 
schedule formulas approved by the Commission.
    Over the years, the Commission has undertaken a careful review of 
NECA's proposed formula revisions, which to date have involved 
extensive and complex cost studies, regression models, and other 
statistical measures and estimation theory. We seek to adopt a more 
streamlined and flexible procedural process for average schedule 
companies. In particular, we believe that if the formula development 
process is streamlined, a concomitant streamlining of the review 
process should follow. In addition, we note that the review periods 
today are much shorter for most Commission tariff filings. For example, 
pursuant to our rules, NECA's annual joint access tariff is filed on 
June 15 with an effective date of July 1, a fifteen-day review cycle.
    NECA has proposed that the Commission consolidate its review of 
NECA's proposed revisions to the average schedule formulas with its 
review of NECA's access tariff filing. We seek comment on the 
feasibility of consolidating these two review periods, which we believe 
would significantly reduce regulatory burdens on NECA. We note that the 
current tariff filings are subject to a 7 or 15 day review process. We 
ask parties to comment on whether a 7 or 15 day review period will 
adequately accommodate both reviews of the tariff filing and the 
revised average schedule formulas. What benefits would be obtained 
through a shortened review process of the average schedule formulas? 
Will the Commission or interested parties have a reasonable opportunity 
to address issues raised by proposed formula revisions? Do the benefits 
of a shortened review period outweigh any burdens on the Commission and 
interested parties to review, comment on, and, if necessary, modify the 
formulas in this shortened time period? Commenters should also address 
whether the length of the formula review process should depend on 
whether NECA simplifies its process for formula development. If the 
average schedule formula development process were streamlined as set 
forth in one of the options proposed previously, a more abbreviated 
review period could be appropriate. We ask parties to comment on 
whether this combined filing process would permit interested parties to 
review and comment on the proposed formulas. We also ask parties to 
comment on whether it is appropriate for us to limit our review to the 
tariff filing only. What impact would our lack of oversight of the 
average schedule formulas have on customers of interstate access 
(namely, long distance companies), and, ultimately, long distance 
rates, particularly in areas where an average schedule company is not 
subject to competition from alternative providers of interstate access?
    Finally, we note our concern that as we seek to further simplify 
the current access charge process surrounding average schedule 
companies, we must also seek to encourage investment and deployment of 
new services in areas served by average schedule companies. In 
addition, particularly in areas where there are no competitive 
alternative providers of exchange access, we remain concerned that 
consumers are not burdened with higher long distance rates because 
access charges are overstated. We seek comment on rule changes that 
will best address these concerns, while minimizing regulatory burdens, 
providing incentives for investments and new services, and protecting 
consumers.

Procedural Issues

C. Ex Parte Presentations

    This is a permit-but-disclose rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte 
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, 
if disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 
CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206.

D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires 
that an RFA analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking 
proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if 
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines ``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. 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 Small Business Administration 
(SBA). In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on 
certain of our rules pertaining to the National Exchange Carrier 
Association (NECA), which operates pooling mechanisms to collect and 
distribute revenues among its participating carriers. In particular, we 
propose to eliminate the annual election requirements for NECA's board 
of directors under Sec. 69.602 and seek comment on whether other 
measures, such as staggered terms and term limits are necessary. We 
also propose to streamline the average schedule formula process under 
Sec. 69.609.
    We certify, pursuant to RFA, that the proposed rules will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. NECA is a non-profit, quasi-governmental association created 
to administer the Commission's interstate access tariff and revenue 
distributions processes. Because the proposed rule amendments affect 
only NECA directly, we find that no substantial number of small 
entities are potentially affected by our action. In addition, any 
economic effect that might result is positive (de-regulatory) and not 
significant. The Commission will send a copy of this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, including this initial certification, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and it will be 
published in the Federal Register.

E. Comment Filing Procedures

    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, Written comments by the public are due on or before 
October 22, 2001, reply comments are due on or before November 5, 2001. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
    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

[[Page 48410]]

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 who choose to file by paper must file an original and four 
copies of each filing. If participants want each Commissioner to 
receive a personal copy of their comments, an original plus nine copies 
must be filed. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in 
the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional 
copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. All filings by 
paper 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.
    Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their 
comments on diskette. Diskettes should be submitted to: Ernestine 
Creech, Room 6 C-317, Accounting Safeguards Division, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20554. The required diskette copies of submissions should be on 3.5-
inch diskettes formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word or 
compatible software. Each diskette should be accompanied by a cover 
letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette 
should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (CC 
Docket No. 01-174), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date 
of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The 
label should also include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an 
Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, 
preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, parties who choose 
to file by paper must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy 
contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be 
available for public inspection during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, Suite CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Washington, DC.

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 11, 201-
205, 218-220, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C., 151, 154(i), 161, 201-205, 218-220, 254, and 403 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby Adopted.
    The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information 
Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-23495 Filed 9-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P