[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34665-34669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12097]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 61 and 69

[CC Docket No. 02-53, RM-10131; FCC 02-79]


Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charges

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document initiates a rulemaking proceeding to examine 
presubscribed interexchange carrier-change charges (PIC-change 
charges). PIC-change charges are federally-tariffed charges imposed by 
incumbent local exchange carriers on end-user subscribers when these 
subscribers change their presubscribed long distance carriers. PIC-
change charges currently are subject to a $5 safe harbor within which a 
PIC-change charge is considered reasonable. The $5 safe harbor was 
implemented in 1984, and industry and market conditions have changed 
since that time. Therefore, this document seeks comment on revising the 
Commission's policies regarding the PIC-change charge.

DATES: Comments due June 14, 2002, and reply comments due July 1, 2002. 
Written comments by the public on the proposed information collections 
are due June 14, 2002. Written comments must be submitted by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections 
on or before July 15, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer McKee, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 418-1530. For further 
information concerning the information collections contained in this 
document, contact Judith Boley Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via the 
Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in CC Docket No. 02-53 released on March 
20, 2002. The full text of this document is available on the 
Commission's Web site Electronic Comment Filing System and for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20554.
    This NPRM contains proposed information collections subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, 
the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment 
on the proposed information collections contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) contains a proposed 
information collection. The Commission, as part of the continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information 
collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public and agency 
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB 
notification of action is due July 15, 2002. Comments should address: 
(1) 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; (2) the accuracy 
of the Commission's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) 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: Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charges.
    Form No.: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Proposed new collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 69.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 85.5 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 5900 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $45,885.00.
    Needs and Uses: The information would be used to determine local 
exchange carriers' costs of providing PIC-change charges for setting 
rates for these charges.

Background

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted March 14, 2002 and 
released March 20, 2002 in CC Docket No. 02-53, FCC 02-79, initiates a 
proceeding to examine the charges imposed on consumers for changing 
long distance carriers, known as PIC-change charges. These charges 
currently are subject to a $5 safe harbor within which a PIC-change 
charge is considered reasonable. This $5 safe harbor was established by 
the Commission in 1984 and affirmed in 1987, but the Commission has not 
reviewed the reasonableness of this safe harbor since that time.

[[Page 34666]]

    On May 16, 2001, the Competitive Telecommunications Association 
(CompTel) petitioned the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding 
to revise its policies governing the PIC-change charge. Based on 
CompTel's petition and the comments received in response to it, we 
conclude that circumstances have changed since the Commission's last 
comprehensive review of this issue, and the $5 safe harbor may no 
longer be reasonable. The current safe harbor was established based on 
the difficulty of assessing actual costs by carrier for this service, 
what was known generally about the costs of providing this service, and 
a determination that it was good policy to discourage excessive 
switching of carriers. All three of these factors are now ripe for 
reexamination.

Discussion

    We undertake this rulemaking with the goal of establishing a 
reasonable PIC-change charge under current conditions. We will examine 
whether to base the PIC-change charge on an examination of carrier 
costs or whether we can rely on market forces to ensure reasonable 
rates. We will consider what costs carriers reasonably can recover 
through the PIC-change charge and whether to take non-cost factors into 
account in determining a reasonable charge. We will also examine 
whether to establish a national safe harbor, whether carriers should 
submit individualized cost support with their tariffs, or whether we 
should review rates solely through our enforcement processes. We seek 
comment on these issues, as well as any alternative means of ensuring 
the reasonableness of PIC-change charges.
    As a threshold matter, we think it is important to examine whether 
the PIC-change charge should be a regulated cost-based charge, or 
whether market forces will constrain PIC-change charges to reasonable 
levels. The current safe harbor was established in 1984, based largely 
on an analysis of carrier costs. When a market is not competitive we 
cannot rely on market forces to constrain rates. Thus, we must examine 
the market for PIC-change services to determine whether a cost-based or 
market-based approach is the appropriate means to regulate PIC-change 
charges. Under current network configurations, a PIC change must be 
completed by an end user's LEC. The change relates, however, to a 
customer-carrier relationship between the end user and an IXC, which 
may or may not be affiliated with the end user's LEC. We seek comment 
on the nature of the market for PIC-change services and the need for 
the Commission to continue to apply a cost-based standard to ensure 
reasonable rates for PIC-change charges. We also seek comment on 
whether reliance on market forces could be made more practicable by 
modifying network configurations or the relationships between LECs, 
IXCs, and end users.
    If we conclude that market forces will not ensure reasonable PIC-
change charges, we must determine whether PIC-change charges should be 
based on costs, and, if so, what costs those charges should recover. In 
the 1984 access charge order, the Commission simply said that a 
presubscription charge that covers the unbundled costs of a 
subscription PIC change would be reasonable. Parties submitting 
comments on CompTel's Petition have widely varying contentions with 
regard to the relevant costs. Some commenters contend that costs 
related to the actions necessary to process a request and implement the 
change are the only costs that should be recovered. Another contends 
that the PIC-change charge should recover a wider array of costs, 
including costs incurred in administering customer allegations of 
slamming. We seek comment on the types of costs that should or should 
not be recovered through the PIC-change charge and why. We ask that 
commenters be as specific as possible. Our goal is to establish a 
standard that does not require continuous revision as technology 
evolves. Accordingly, we ask that commenters identify the individual 
functions that make up the PIC-change process, describe the process in 
detail, and explain why each function is necessary. For example, if 
customer care personnel perform multiple functions manually, commenters 
shall separately identify each function and its purpose. Likewise, 
commenters should identify by function the services that are automated, 
not merely name the automated facilities that are used to perform these 
services.
    Some commenters assert that it is more costly to perform PIC-change 
services for certain customers than others. For example, SBC notes that 
customers subscribing to SBC's ``PIC freeze'' service require more 
manual intervention than non-subscribers to process a PIC change. The 
carrier also suggests that ``excessive'' PIC changes would justify an 
above-cost PIC-change charge. Many parties contend that this is no 
longer a valid policy reason for maintaining a safe harbor that is not 
supported by current cost data. We seek comment on whether and how such 
issues should be taken into account in establishing a reasonable PIC-
change charge. Should the same PIC-change charge apply to all 
customers, regardless of whether they subscribe to an incumbent LEC's 
PIC-freeze service, or should LECs impose a higher charge for PIC-
freeze usage? Carriers may allow customers to freeze their PICs for 
multiple services, i.e., interstate, intraLATA intrastate, and local 
service. If commenters argue that the additional costs of conducting a 
PIC change for a customer subscribing to a PIC-freeze service should be 
recovered through the PIC-change charge, we seek comment on how to 
allocate the additional costs among jurisdictions. Should end users 
incur the same charge each time they request a PIC change, or should a 
higher charge be imposed upon a customer that requests ``excessive'' 
PIC changes? If the latter, why, and what constitutes ``excessive'' PIC 
changes? Additionally, when the Commission first identified the 
potential for excessive carrier switching as a basis for the safe 
harbor, significant uncertainty about the ability of carriers to 
identify the costs of PIC changes existed. There is evidence that this 
circumstance has changed. How should a carrier's ability to identify 
accurately its actual PIC-change costs affect the weight to be given to 
non-cost-based rationales for a particular safe harbor?
    In light of the existence of intrastate, intraLATA toll dialing 
parity, most end users currently have a choice of both interLATA and 
intraLATA interexchange service providers. Accordingly, end users may 
change both their interLATA and intraLATA carriers simultaneously to a 
single carrier. In that circumstance, incumbent LECs may impose both an 
interstate and intrastate PIC-change charge for the transaction. We 
seek comment on whether this amounts to a double recovery. Interested 
parties are asked to comment on whether it is reasonable for incumbent 
LECs to recover both charges, a percentage of each charge, only one of 
the charges, or some totally different charge under these 
circumstances.
    If we determine that the PIC-change charge should be cost-based, we 
must then establish a means to ensure incumbent LEC PIC-change charges 
recover only the costs associated with that service. We seek comment on 
whether the Commission should (1) require the filing of cost support 
with each PIC-change charge tariff; (2) rely on the formal complaint 
process and other enforcement mechanisms to review rates; or (3) 
establish a safe harbor to ensure reasonable rates.
    If we conclude that a safe harbor is the most efficient means of 
ensuring reasonable rates, we will need to establish that safe harbor. 
We seek comment on the best means for doing

[[Page 34667]]

so. Should we establish a safe harbor on the basis of the incumbent 
LECs' average costs? Should we base the safe harbor on the incumbent 
LECs' lowest cost, giving carriers the option of providing cost support 
to justify a higher charge? If so, what would the lowest cost be? In 
this respect, we note that some carriers charge substantially less than 
the current safe harbor. For example, as noted above, BellSouth charges 
$1.49. Does BellSouth's $1.49 charge, or any other charge differing 
from the safe harbor, establish a lower or upper bound? Commenters 
should provide cost evidence supporting any safe harbor proposed. 
Should the Commission distinguish between incumbent LECs, and, if so, 
on what bases? Should the Commission use a proxy and, if so, what is a 
reasonable proxy for the PIC-change service? Should there be separate 
proxies for large and small incumbent LECs? Do market proxies exist? 
Are state-arbitrated rates for unbundled network element platform (UNE-
P) and resale migrations or state-regulated rates for intraLATA PIC-
change charges reasonable proxies for the interstate PIC-change 
service? Is there a weighted average of several rates that would 
constitute a reasonable proxy? Parties are asked to comment on these 
options, and submit alternative suggestions for our consideration.

Procedural Matters

Ex Parte Requirements

    This proceeding will be governed by ``permit-but-disclose'' ex 
parte procedures that are applicable to non-restricted proceedings 
under 47 CFR 1.1206. Parties making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain a 
summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing 
of the subjects discussed. More than a one-or two-sentence description 
of the views and arguments presented generally is required. See 47 CFR 
1.1206(b)(2). Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations 
are set forth in Sec. 1.1206(b) as well. Interested parties are to file 
any written ex parte presentations in this proceeding with the 
Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, 445 12th Street, SW, TW-
B204, Washington, DC 20554, and serve with three copies: Pricing Policy 
Division, Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 5-A452, 
Washington, DC 20554, Attn: Jennifer McKee. Parties shall also serve 
with one copy: Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 863-2893.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 
857 (1996). 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 NPRM. The Commission will send a 
copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 
603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on its policies for 
regulating presubscribed interexchange carrier-change charges (PIC-
change charges). Specifically, we will examine whether to base the PIC-
change charge on an examination of carrier costs or whether we can rely 
on market forces to ensure reasonable rates. We will consider what 
costs carriers reasonably can recover through the PIC-change charge and 
whether to take non-cost factors into account in determining a 
reasonable charge. We will also examine whether to establish a national 
safe harbor, whether carriers should submit individualized cost support 
with their tariffs, or whether we should review rates solely through 
our enforcement processes. We seek comment on these issues, as well as 
any alternative means of ensuring the reasonableness of PIC-change 
charges.

Legal Basis

    The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the 
NPRM is contained in sections 4, 201-202, and 303 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 201-202, and 303, and 
Secs. 1.1, 1.411, and 1.412 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 
1.411, and 1.412.

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 will be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). For the purposes of this 
NPRM, the RFA defines a ``small business'' to be the same as a ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, unless 
the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are 
appropriate to its activities. 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by 
reference the definition of ``small business concern'' in 5 U.S.C. 
632). 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 SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632.
    We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) in 
this present RFA analysis. As noted above, 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.'' 
15 U.S.C. 632. The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA 
purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of 
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. See 
Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William 
E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act 
contains a definition of ``small business concern,'' which the RFA 
incorporates into its own definition of ``small business.'' See 15 
U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (RFA). SBA 
regulations interpret ``small business concern'' to include the concept 
of dominance on a national basis. 13 CFR 121.102(b). Since 1996, out of 
an abundance of caution, the Commission has included small incumbent 
LECs in its regulatory flexibility analyses. See, e.g., Implementation 
of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, 61 FR 45476, August 29, 1996. We have therefore included small 
incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this 
RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and

[[Page 34668]]

determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    The Census Bureau reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 
3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined 
therein, for at least one year. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 
the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and 
Utilities, UC 92-S-1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, at 
Firm Size 1-123 (1995). This number contains a variety of different 
categories of carriers, including LECs, interexchange carriers (IXCs), 
competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay telephone 
operators, and resellers. It seems certain that some of these 3,497 
telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small 
incumbent LECs because they are not ``independently owned and 
operated.'' See generally 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1). It seems reasonable to 
conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity 
telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by 
this analysis.
Local Exchange Carriers
    Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a special small 
business size standard for small LECs. The closest applicable category 
for these types of carriers under SBA rules is for telecommunications 
carriers, wired. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 513310. See also 13 CFR 
121.201, NAICS codes 513330 (telecommunications resellers), and 513340 
(telephone communications carriers, satellite). The most reliable 
source of information regarding the number of LECs nationwide appears 
to be the data that we collect annually in connection with FCC Form 
499-A, the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. Information from the 
Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets is compiled in the Carrier 
Locator report. See Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers, FCC 
Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division (rel. Nov. 2001) 
(Carrier Locator). According to our most recent data, there are 1,329 
incumbent LECs. Carrier Locator at Table 1. Although some of these 
carriers may not be independently owned and operated, or have more than 
1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater 
precision the number of LECs that would qualify as small business 
concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that 
there are no more than 1,329 small entity incumbent LECs that may be 
affected by the proposals in the NPRM.
Interexchange Carriers
    Although our actions as proposed would not directly affect IXCs, 
and therefore IXCs are not within the RFA for purposes of this IRFA, we 
voluntarily include them here to create a fuller record and encourage 
public comment. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of 
interexchange services. The closest applicable definition under the SBA 
rules is for wired telecommunications carriers. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS 
code 513310. See also 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 513330 
(telecommunications resellers), and 513340 (telephone communications 
carriers, satellite). According to the most recent Carrier Locator 
report, 229 carriers reported that their primary telecommunications 
service activity was the provision of interexchange services. See 
Carrier Locator at Table 1. 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 IXCs that would qualify as small 
business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate 
that there are 229 or fewer small entity IXCs that may be affected by 
the rules.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    We are seeking comment on whether we can rely on market forces to 
set reasonable PIC-change charges, or whether these charges must be 
regulated. If we find that the market reasonably sets these charges, 
there will be no additional reporting or recordkeeping burden on 
incumbent LECs with respect to these charges. If we determine that the 
market will not successfully constrain PIC-change charges, we must 
determine whether to establish a safe harbor below which PIC-change 
charges are to be deemed reasonable, or whether these charges should be 
cost-based. If we adopt a safe harbor, incumbent LECs will be in the 
same situation as under the current rules, i.e., PIC-change charges 
tariffed at rates below the safe harbor are deemed reasonable, and LECs 
have the option of demonstrating that their costs for PIC changes 
exceed that rate. If we decide not to adopt a safe harbor and require 
incumbent LECs to set PIC-change charges at cost, incumbent LECs will 
be required to file information demonstrating the costs of providing 
PIC changes.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, 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. 5 U.S.C. 
603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
    We are seeking comment on alternative methods of setting a PIC-
change charge, including whether market forces will successfully 
constrain these charges, and whether to adopt a safe harbor below which 
rates are presumed reasonable. These proposals would reduce the 
reporting and recordkeeping burden on all incumbent LECs, including 
small LECs.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

Filing of Comments and Reply Comments

    Pursuant to Secs. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before June 
14, 2002, and reply comments July 1, 2002. All comments and reply 
comments should reference the docket number of this proceeding, CC 
Docket No. 02-53. 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 filing 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

[[Page 34669]]

electronic copy 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 email address>.'' A sample form and directions will be sent 
in reply. Commenters also may obtain a copy of the ASCII Electronic 
Transmittal Form (FORM-ET) at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/email.html.
    Parties filing paper copies must file an original and four copies 
of each filing. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the 
caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional 
copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. All filings 
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
St., SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    Interested parties who wish to file comments via hand-delivery are 
also notified that effective December 18, 2001, the Commission will 
only receive such deliveries weekdays from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The 
Commission no longer accepts these filings at 9300 East Hampton Drive, 
Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Please note that all hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners, and envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building. In addition, this is a 
reminder that as of October 18, 2001, the Commission no longer accepts 
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered filings at its headquarters at 
445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Messenger-delivered 
documents (e.g., FedEx), including documents sent by overnight mail 
(other than United States Postal Service (USPS) Express and Priority 
Mail), must be addressed to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 
MD 20743. This location is open weekdays from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. USPS 
First-Class, Express, and Priority Mail should be addressed to the 
Commission's headquarters at 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or by 
paper, parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this 
docket with the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554 
(telephone 202-863-2893; facsimile 202-863-2898) or via e-mail at 
[email protected]. In addition, one copy of each submission must be 
filed with the Chief, Pricing Policy Division, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Room 5-A225, Washington, DC 20554. Documents filed in this proceeding 
will be available for public inspection during regular business hours 
in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, and will be placed on the Commission's Internet 
site.
    Written comments by the public on the proposed information 
collections are due June 14, 2002. Written comments must be submitted 
by OMB on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or 
before July 15, 2002. In addition to filing comments with the 
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections 
contained herein should be submitted to Judith Boley Herman, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to 
Jeanette Thornton, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, 
NW, Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-12097 Filed 5-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P