[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49707-49712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-21163]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 03-170]


Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts the Federal-State 
Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) recommendation to retain 
the existing list of services supported by federal universal service. 
The Commission agrees with the Joint Board that, with the possible 
exception of equal access, no new service satisfies the statutory 
criteria contained in section 254(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended (``Act'') or should be added to the list of core services.

DATES: Effective September 18, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Yockus, Attorney, 
Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 
(202) 418-7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45 released on July 
14, 2003. The full text of this document is available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

I. Introduction

    1. The Commission adopts the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
Service (Joint Board) recommendation to retain the existing list of 
services supported by federal universal service. The Commission agrees 
with the Joint Board that, with the possible exception of equal access, 
no new service satisfies the statutory criteria contained in section 
254(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') or 
should be added to the list of core services. The Joint Board was 
unable to reach agreement on whether equal access should be added to 
the list of supported services and made no recommendation regarding 
this service. Because critical arguments in favor of adding equal 
access are related to the eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) 
process and calculation of support for competitive ETCs, both of which 
are within the scope of the Portability Proceeding, 68 FR 10429 (March 
5, 2003), the Commission makes no decision regarding equal access at 
this time.

II. Discussion

    2. The Commission adopts the Joint Board's recommendation to retain 
the existing list of services supported by universal service. The 
Commission also agrees with the Joint Board's general conclusion that 
no new service satisfies the statutory criteria contained in

[[Page 49708]]

section 254(c) and that the public interest would not be served by 
expanding the list of supported services at this time. The Commission 
agrees with the Joint Board that the current list of supported services 
strikes the right balance between ensuring the availability of 
fundamental telecommunications services to all Americans and 
maintaining a sustainable universal service fund. In its Recommended 
Decision, the Joint Board discussed several specific services and 
proposals--advanced or high-speed services, unlimited local usage, soft 
dial tone or warm line services, prepaid calling plans, payphone lines, 
Braille TTY and two line voice carry over, N11 codes, toll or expanded 
area service, modifying voice grade access bandwidth, transport costs, 
rural wireless ETC category, and technical and service quality. The 
Joint Board was unable to reach agreement, however, on whether to 
recommend including equal access in the list of core services. The 
Commission makes no decision regarding equal access at this time and 
will address it in the context of the Portability Proceeding, 68 FR 
10429 (March 5, 2003).

A. Advanced or High-Speed Services

    3. Consistent with the Joint Board's Recommended Decision, the 
Commission declines to expand the definition of supported services to 
include advanced or high-speed services at this time. Although the 
Commission agrees with commenters, such as the National 
Telecommunications Cooperative (NTCA) and Valor Communications, that 
broadband services are becoming increasingly important for consumers in 
all regions of the nation, we also agree with the Joint Board and the 
vast majority of commenters that high-speed and advanced services 
currently do not meet the Act's criteria for inclusion on the list of 
supported services.
    4. Like the Joint Board, the Commission recognizes that high-speed 
and advanced services may enable subscribers to access Internet 
resources used for educational, public health, or public safety 
purposes. At this time, however, the Commission does not find that 
advanced or high-speed services are essential to reaching these 
resources. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board and most 
commenters that although advanced and high speed services are useful 
for educational, public health and public safety purposes, they are not 
essential for these purposes as set out by section 254(c).
    5. Although telecommunications carriers increasingly are deploying 
infrastructure capable of providing advanced and high-speed services, 
the Commission agrees with the Joint Board and commenters that advanced 
services are not subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential 
consumers. In fact, the Commission's own data shows that as of December 
31, 2002, there were approximately 17.4 million high-speed lines 
serving residential and small business subscribers, which represents 16 
percent of all U.S. households. Additionally, according to another 
study, only 56.5 percent of all households as of September 2001 had 
computers and could even benefit from advanced service offerings. 
Furthermore, the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) states that 
there were 18.6 million broadband subscribers at the end of 2002 and, 
assuming all of these subscribers are residential, this would represent 
only 17 percent of American households.
    6. In addition, comments in response to the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 68 FR 12020 (March 13, 2003), like those in response to the 
Joint Board's Public Notice, 66 FR 46461 (September 5, 2001), suggest 
that adding advanced or high-speed services to the definition of 
supported services would be contrary to the public interest due to the 
high cost of requiring the deployment of such services. If advanced or 
high-speed services were added to the list of supported services, it 
could drastically increase the financial burden placed on carriers and, 
ultimately, consumers because all eligible telecommunications carriers 
would be required to offer such services in order to receive support. 
The Commission agrees with the Joint Board that the public interest 
would not be served by substantially increasing the support burden by 
expanding the definition of universal service to include these 
services.
    7. Moreover, the Commission agrees with the Joint Board that adding 
advanced or high-speed services to the list could jeopardize support 
currently provided to some carriers. While many small rural carriers 
have made significant progress in deploying broadband infrastructure, 
they do not yet offer advanced or high speed services ubiquitously 
throughout their service area. This would reduce the number of 
providers eligible for universal service support and might reduce 
consumer choice in rural and high-cost areas.
    8. Although the Commission concludes that advanced or high-speed 
services do not satisfy the statutory criteria necessary for inclusion 
in the definition of supported services at this time, the Commission 
maintains its commitment to ensuring that appropriate policies are in 
place to encourage the successful deployment of infrastructure capable 
of delivering advanced and high-speed services. Indeed, section 254(b) 
of the Act provides that the Joint Board and the Commission shall base 
policies for the preservation and advancement of universal service on 
several principles, including the ability to access advanced 
telecommunications and information services in all regions of the 
nation. Accordingly, the Commission continues to support the 
Commission's prior conclusion that ``our universal service policies 
should not inadvertently create barriers to the provision or access to 
advanced services, and * * * that our current universal service system 
does not create such barriers.'' Thus, even though advanced services 
are not directly supported by federal universal service, ``[Commission] 
policies do not impede the deployment of modern plant capable of 
providing access to advanced services.'' The Commission recognizes that 
the network is an integrated facility that may be used to provide both 
supported and non-supported services. The Commission believe that the 
our policy of not impeding the deployment of plant capable of providing 
access to advanced or high-speed services is fully consistent with the 
Congressional goal of ensuring access to advanced telecommunications 
and information services throughout the nation.

B. Unlimited Local Usage

    9. The Commission adopts the Joint Board recommendation that 
unlimited local usage should not be added to the list of supported 
services. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board and the vast 
majority of the commenters that unlimited local usage is not essential 
to education, public health or public safety. The Commission also 
agrees with the Joint Board that adding it to the list would not serve 
the public interest because it could hinder states' ability to require 
local metered pricing for local service. As the Joint Board noted, 
states may require or encourage local metered service because it may, 
for example, encourage subscribership among low-income or low-volume 
users. Adding a national local usage requirement, however, would 
preclude this type of experimentation by the states. The Commission 
agrees with AT&T that states are in a better position to determine 
whether unlimited local usage offerings are beneficial in particular 
circumstances. Finally, the Commission note that the Joint Board found 
the record to be inadequate to determine whether adoption of such a

[[Page 49709]]

requirement would provide a competitive advantage to wireline carriers, 
due to the different cost structures of wireless and wireline 
technologies. No party provided additional information to address this 
issue in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Accordingly, 
the Commission concurs with the Joint Board's recommendation regarding 
unlimited local usage.
    10. The Commission is not persuaded by comments filed by the 
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) and 
the Montana Universal Service Task Force (MUST) that unlimited local 
usage should be added to the list. NASUCA and MUST assert unlimited 
local usage should be included in the definition of supported services 
simply because it is widely available and subscribed to by a majority 
of residential consumers when offered. They believe that concerns 
regarding the competitive neutrality of such a requirement should not 
outweigh the fact that it is provided to many, if not most, residential 
consumers. Both parties, however, fail to consider all of the statutory 
criteria. MUST does not consider, much less rebut, the Joint Board's 
finding that unlimited local usage is not essential to education, 
public health and public safety. Moreover, both NASUCA and MUST fail to 
consider that the Joint Board concluded it would preclude state 
experimentation with calling plans and, therefore, not serve the public 
interest. Based on our consideration of all of the factors, 
specifically that it is not essential, that it would not serve the 
public interest, and that the Commission have no basis to determine 
whether it is competitively neutral, we find that unlimited local usage 
should not be added to the list of core services at this time.

C. Soft Dial Tone/Warm Line Service

    11. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board that the definition 
of the services supported by universal service should not be expanded 
to include soft dial tone/warm line service. Soft dial tone/warm line 
service enables a consumer without local service to utilize an 
otherwise disconnected line to contact emergency services and the local 
exchange carrier's central business office. Such services, however, are 
not subscribed to by any residential consumers. Additionally, the 
Commission finds the record does not contain sufficient information to 
indicate that adding soft dial tone/warm line service to the list of 
supported services would serve the public interest. In response to the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, no commenter provided estimates of the 
cost of adding soft dial tone or warm line service to the list of 
supported services or addressed in detail the implementation and 
administration of such a requirement.
    12. Although the Commission agrees with USCCB et al. that soft dial 
tone/warm line service can improve the ability of certain low-income 
consumers to reach emergency services, we also agree with the Joint 
Board that states are in a better position to establish these programs 
because states maintain closer ties to local public safety 
organizations. The vast majority of commenters support the Joint 
Board's recommendation and believe the establishment of soft dial tone 
or warm line programs would be better left to the individual states. In 
fact, the New York Department of Public Service stated that a national 
solution, and the commitment costs that would be incurred, would 
conflict with its state program and eliminate the flexibility required 
to meet local needs. Accordingly, we adopt the Joint Board's 
recommendation that these services not be added to the list of 
supported services at this time. However, given the importance of such 
services, we do agree with NASUCA that we should continue to monitor 
the development of state soft dial tone and warm line programs.

D. Prepaid Calling

    13. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board that the services 
supported by universal service should not be expanded to include 
prepaid services. In response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
USCCB et al. proposes to add prepaid services generally to the list of 
supported services. It argued its proposal--which encompasses wireline 
and wireless technologies--meets the section 254(c) criteria and is 
competitively neutral.
    14. Based on the record before us, USCCB et al.'s proposal does not 
appear to meet three of the statutory criteria. First, the record does 
not indicate that a substantial majority of residential consumers 
subscribe to prepaid services. Although the Commission agree with USCCB 
et al. that consumers receive the same telecommunications 
functionalities, i.e. voice grade access to the public switched 
network, regardless of when they pay for services, pre- and postpaid 
services utilize different billing practices. USCCB et al. has failed 
to provide any information regarding the number of consumers who select 
the prepaid billing option. Second, no party has submitted information 
in the record regarding the extent to which wireline and wireless 
carriers have billing systems capable of providing prepaid services, so 
the record is insufficient to determine whether carriers have deployed 
prepaid service billing equipment in their networks.
    15. Third, the Commission question whether adding prepaid services 
to the list of supported services would be in the public interest. The 
record does not contain information about how much it would cost for 
carriers that do not already have prepaid functionalities to acquire 
such capabilities. Therefore, it is difficult to balance implementation 
costs with the potential benefits of increased subscribership. In 
addition, NASUCA asserts that because the requirement would apply to 
all ETCs, it would require some carriers that serve areas with high 
penetration rates to implement billing changes without any significant 
benefit. Because the record does not indicate whether wireline carriers 
have systems equipped for prepaid plans, the Commission also are 
concerned that USCCB et al.'s proposal may place wireline carriers at a 
competitive disadvantage vis-[agrave]-vis wireless carriers that may 
already offer prepaid plans. NASUCA also points out that prepaid 
pricing plans today are often significantly higher than those for post-
paid services, and, therefore, may not be within the financial reach of 
some consumers. For these reasons, the Commission conclude that prepaid 
services should not be added to the list of supported services.

E. Payphone Lines

    16. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board that payphone lines 
should not be included in the definition of supported services at this 
time. Although payphones play an important role in the public 
communications network, the Commission are persuaded by the Joint 
Board's finding that payphone lines are not subscribed to by a 
substantial majority of residential consumers. In addition, the 
Commission agrees with the Joint Board that the record is insufficient 
to determine whether adding payphone lines to the list of supported 
services would serve the public interest. There is no evidence in the 
record that additional federal support for payphone lines in high cost 
areas is needed for all payphone lines or would be necessary to ensure 
the continued availability of particular payphones. Moreover, including 
payphones in the list of core services could reduce the number of 
potential competitive providers of the core services because many 
competitive LECs and CMRS carriers do not offer payphone service 
throughout their

[[Page 49710]]

service areas and would be ineligible for ETC designations. No party 
filed comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 
favor of adding payphone lines to the definition of supported services 
or supplemented the record analyzed by the Joint Board. Therefore, the 
Commission finds the record is insufficient to support the addition of 
payphone lines to the list of core services.

F. Braille TTY and Two Line Voice Carry Over

    17. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board that the list of 
core services should not be expanded to include Braille TTYs and two 
line voice carry over (2LVCO). Braille TTYs are equipment used to print 
text messages in Braille for people who are deaf-blind, and 2LVCO 
allows hearing impaired consumers to read text messages and respond 
verbally to a relay operator. 2LVCO is a service that hearing-impaired 
consumers provide for themselves by purchasing a special TTY and 
combining it with a second line and conference calling. No commenter in 
response to the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking argued in 
favor of adding either to the list of supported services.
    18. Like the Joint Board, the Commission finds that Braille TTYs, 
which are customer premises equipment, are ineligible for universal 
service support because section 254(c) expressly limits the definition 
of universal service to ``telecommunications services.'' Moreover, 
given the lack of information on the costs of implementing the proposal 
to make 2LVCO a supported service, the Commission agree with the Joint 
Board and finds the record insufficient to add this service to the list 
of supported services at this time. The Commission remains committed to 
exploring alternative mechanisms to ensure the accessibility of 
telecommunications services for persons with disabilities.

G. N11 Codes

    19. The Commission adopts the Joint Board's recommendation that N11 
codes, with the exception of 911 services, do not meet the statutory 
criteria and, therefore, should not be added to the definition of 
supported services. N11 codes are abbreviated dialing arrangements of 
which the first digit may be any digit other than 0 or 1, and the last 
two digits are both 1. These codes are used to enable callers to 
complete telephone calls to various services that require the dialing 
of a seven or ten digit telephone number. In order for consumers to 
access these services using the N11 code, the telephone network must be 
pre-programmed to translate the three-digit code into the appropriate 
seven or ten-digit telephone number to route the call. The Joint Board 
found that N11 codes are not subscribed to by a substantial majority of 
residential consumers and are not essential for education, public 
health, or public safety because consumers may reach the services by 
dialing the seven or ten digit number. In response to the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, no commenter argued in favor of adding 
N11 services to the list of supported services. Therefore, the 
Commission agree with the Joint Board's recommendation and finds that 
N11 services should not be added to the list of supported services.

H. Toll or Expanded Area Service

    20. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board that the definition 
of supported services should not be expanded to include toll or 
expanded area services. The Joint Board found the record insufficient 
to warrant addition of toll or expanded area services. Specifically, 
the record failed to identify the extent to which limited local calling 
areas pose a barrier for certain consumers to reach essential services, 
the cost of the remedy and what critical services if any should be 
supported. No commenter argued that these services should be added to 
the list in response to the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
or supplemented the record analyzed by the Joint Board. Therefore, like 
the Joint Board, we find the record insufficient to add these services 
to the list of supported services at this time.

I. Modifying Voice Grade Access Bandwidth

    21. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board that the existing 
definition of voice grade access to the Public Switched Telephone 
Network (PSTN), which provides for a minimum bandwidth of 300 to 3,000 
Hertz, should be retained. Several commenters representing small and 
rural LECs, in response to the Joint Board Public Notice, proposed to 
modify the definition to 300 to 3,500 Hertz, with the goal of improving 
dial-up modem speeds in rural areas. However, the record before the 
Joint Board was insufficient to demonstrate that the proposed 
modification would actually increase dial-up modem speeds in any areas. 
No commenter in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking argued in 
favor of this modification or augmented the record on this issue. The 
Commission are persuaded by the Joint Board's conclusion that carriers 
should not be required to invest additional funds in mature narrowband 
technologies, particularly when such access would not be necessarily 
result in improved dial-up connection speeds. Moreover, because it is 
unclear, based on the record before us, whether carriers have deployed 
loops that meet the proposed voice grade bandwidth, the Commission, 
like the Joint Board, are concerned that redefining the definition of 
voice grade access in this manner could render existing wireline ETCs 
ineligible for support and preclude wireless carriers from being 
designated ETCs. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board that 
redefining voice grade access in this manner would not serve the public 
interest.

J. Transport Costs

    22. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board that the list of 
supported services should not be expanded to include transport costs at 
this time. ``Transport costs'' refer to two proposals raised in 
response to the Joint Board's Public Notice: first, to modify the 
definition of ``access to interexchange service'' to include the use of 
transport facilities in insular areas and second, to provide universal 
service funding to IXCs in Alaska for transport costs needed to support 
56kbps data transmissions. No commenter in response to the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking argued for the addition of transport costs to the 
list of supported services or supplemented the record analyzed by the 
Joint Board. Accordingly, the Commission agrees with the Joint Board 
and finds that the record is inadequate to determine whether there is 
need for such support and what the cost of providing such support would 
be. The Commission also agrees with the Joint Board that allowing 
funding for transport to enable 56 kbps transmissions would be 
inappropriate given the decision not to expand or modify the definition 
of voice grade access as described above.

K. Rural Wireless ETC Category

    23. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board recommendation that 
a new rural wireless ETC category should not be created to enable 
wireless carriers to receive support for the implementation of CALEA 
and E911 solutions. The Joint Board found that creating different 
criteria for a subset of ETCs would be contrary to the intent of 
section 214 and may not be competitively neutral. No commenters in 
response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking disagreed with the Joint 
Board's conclusion. Accordingly, the Commission agrees

[[Page 49711]]

with the Joint Board that we should not create a subcategory of ETC for 
rural wireless carriers.

L. Technical and Service Quality Standards

    24. The Commission agrees with the Joint Board and the vast 
majority of commenters that we should not impose technical or service 
quality standards as a condition to receive universal service support. 
The Commission is not persuaded that there is a need to adopt federal 
technical and service quality standards at this time. In response to 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, no commenter provided specific 
examples of states that lack jurisdiction over certain carriers or 
service quality problems that would necessitate a federal standard. 
Based on the record before us in this proceeding, the Commission finds 
no reason to supplant the states' role of implementing and enforcing 
technical and service quality standards.

M. Equal Access

    25. The Joint Board was unable to reach agreement on whether equal 
access should be added to the list of supported services. Consequently, 
the Recommended Decision presented the arguments of the Joint Board 
members in favor of and opposed to adding equal access to the 
definition of supported services. Comments received in response to the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking were similarly split.
    26. Parties in favor of adding equal access argue all ETCs that 
receive high cost support in a particular area should be required to 
provide comparable services. Specifically, they argue regulatory parity 
requires wireless ETCs to provide equal access, because the majority of 
incumbent LEC/ETCs offer it. Additionally, these parties assert that 
the current definition of supported services, when combined with the 
Commission's policies for calculating competitive ETC high-cost 
support, provides advantages to wireless ETCs. Specifically, they 
allege wireless ETCs receive a windfall when they receive support based 
on the incumbent ETC's costs, as these costs include the cost of 
providing equal access, a service not provided by wireless ETCs. The 
parties also argue that competition in high-cost areas will be enhanced 
with equal access requirements for universal service support, and that 
consumers will benefit. Furthermore, they assert that when considering 
the totality of the circumstances and the four section 254 criteria for 
determining what services should be supported, equal access should be 
added to the list of supported services. Finally, they argue that 
section 332(c)(8) of the Act does not prevent the Commission from 
requiring CMRS carriers to provide equal access in order to receive 
universal service funds. They contend this provision only prevents the 
Commission from requiring CMRS carriers to provide equal access as a 
general condition of mobile service.
    27. Parties in opposition to adding equal access to the list of 
supported services assert that the costs of adding equal access to the 
list of supported services would hinder competitive ETCs from entering 
or continuing to serve some geographic areas. These parties also claim 
that the addition to the list of supported services would be 
inconsistent with the congressional intent of section 332(c)(8) of the 
Act, and would not further the competitive goals of the Act. Finally, 
they argue that equal access fails to meet the section 254(c) statutory 
criteria.
    28. Because critical arguments in favor of adding equal access are 
related to the ETC designation process and the calculation of support 
for competitive ETCs, both of which are within the scope of the 
Portability Proceeding, the Commission makes no decision regarding 
equal access at this time. The Commission agrees with commenters like 
Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile that some of the arguments raised in 
favor of adding equal access are directly related to the methodology 
for calculating universal service support provided to competitive ETCs.
    Given the scope of the Portability Proceeding, the Commission 
believe that a determination regarding equal access would be premature 
at this time. For example, if the Commission were to determine that 
competitive ETCs' support should be based on their own costs, as 
opposed to incumbents', many of the arguments for adding equal access 
could be moot. Accordingly, the Commission defers consideration of this 
issue pending resolution of the Portability Proceeding.
    29. We note that the outcome of the Commission's pending proceeding 
examining the rules relating to high-cost universal service support in 
competitive areas could potentially impact, among other things, the 
support that competitive ETCs may receive in the future. As such, the 
Commission recognizes that any grant of competitive ETC status pending 
completion of that proceeding will be subject to whatever rules are 
established in the future. The Commission intends to proceed as 
expeditiously as possible to address the important and comprehensive 
issues that are being raised.

III. Procedural Issues

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
    30. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission sought written public comment on 
the proposals in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including comment 
on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
conforms to the RFA.
    31. In this Order, the Commission adopts the Joint Board's 
recommendations to retain the existing list of services supported by 
universal service. Accordingly, the Commission do not adopt any changes 
to our universal service rules or reporting burdens.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA
    32. The Commission did not receive any comments in response to the 
IRFA.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will Apply
    33. The Commission did not adopt or modify any rules in this Order.
4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
    34. There are no new or changed reporting requirements adopted in 
this Order.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternative Considered
    35. Because no rules are adopted or modified in this Order, there 
are no economic impacts created by this Order.
6. Report to Congress
    36. The Commission will send a copy of this Order, including the 
FRFA analysis, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of this Order, including this FRFA analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of this Order and 
FRFA analysis (or summaries thereof) also will be published in the 
Federal Register.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    37. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to 
the

[[Page 49712]]

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose no new or modified 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    38. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 
201-205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, this order is adopted.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-21163 Filed 8-18-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P