[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 75 (Monday, April 19, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20845-20851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8481]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 02-386; FCC 04-50]


Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account 
Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should impose mandatory minimum Customer Account Record Exchange (CARE) 
obligations on all local and interexchange carriers and, in specified 
situations, require carriers to transmit certain CARE codes to involved 
carriers that are designed to provide specific billing and other 
essential customer data. It also asks whether adopting a mandatory 
minimum CARE standard for wireline-to-wireless porting would impose a 
burden on LECs and/or commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers, 
and seeks input on what steps might be taken to ameliorate or minimize 
any such burden. The document also seeks comment on proposals for 
addressing billing issues in wireline-to-wireless number porting 
situations.

DATES: Comments are due June 3, 2004 and reply comments are due June 
18, 2004. Written comments by the public on the proposed information 
collection(s) are due June 18, 2004. Written comments must be submitted 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed 
information collection(s) on or before June 18, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with 
the Secretary, a copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments on 
the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to 
Leslie Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to 
[email protected], and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 
10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20503, or via the 
Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Johns at 202-418-2512, Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau. For additional information concerning the 
information collection(s) contained in this document, contact Leslie 
Smith at 202-418-0217 or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 
Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record 
Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers, CG Docket 
No. 02-386, FCC 04-50, contains proposed information collection(s) 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It will be 
submitted to the OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA). OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited 
to comment on the proposed information collection(s) contained in this 
proceeding. This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM, adopted March 
10, 2004, and released March 25, 2004. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 
copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Comments

[[Page 20846]]

filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the 
Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one 
copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or 
rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, 
commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each 
docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing 
the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, 
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should 
send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include the following words 
in the body of the message, ``get form .'' 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 more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must 
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Services mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, 
Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper 
filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, 
NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location 
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before 
entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. 
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service 
first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed 
to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of 
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554. Parties who choose to file by paper 
should also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes should 
be submitted to: Kelli Farmer, Federal Communications Commission, 445 
12th Street, SW., Room 4-C734, Washington, DC 20554. Such submissions 
should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format 
using Word 97 or compatible software. The 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 (including the lead docket number in this case, CG Docket 
No. 02-386, 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, commenters must 
send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex 
International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554. Copies of any subsequently filed documents in 
this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during 
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 
complete text of this NPRM may be purchased from the Commission's 
duplication contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. This is a permit-but 
disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte 
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, 
provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. To 
request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities 
(braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail 
to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
(202) 418-0531 (voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM contains proposed information collection(s). The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections contained in 
this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. Public and agency comments on the proposed information 
collection(s) are due June 18, 2004. Comments should address: (a) 
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including 
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy 
of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might ``further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.'' Only those proposals that might change 
an information collection requirement are discussed below.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
    Title: Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account 
Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers CG 
Docket No. 02-386 (NPRM), FCC 04-50.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents: 3,100.
    Estimated Time per Response: 2 minutes--96 hours (multiple 
responses annually).
    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping.
    Total Annual Burden: 18,104,000 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: None.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Needs and Uses: In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether the Commission should impose mandatory minimum Customer Account 
Record Exchange (CARE) obligations on all local and interexchange 
carriers. Taking into account the variety of methods carriers may use 
to exchange the necessary information, we estimate that a requirement 
making CARE obligations mandatory may result in an additional burden of 
anywhere from two minutes to 96 burden hours per exchange of CARE data.

Synopsis

    The CARE system provides a uniform method for the exchange of 
certain information by interexchange carriers and LECs. CARE allows 
these carriers to exchange the data necessary to establish and maintain 
customer accounts, and to execute and confirm customer orders and 
customer transfers from one long distance carrier to another. At the 
time the existing CARE process was developed, incumbent Local Exchange 
Carriers (LECs), for the most part, did not compete for long distance 
service,

[[Page 20847]]

and local markets were not competitive. However, subsequent to the 
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), the 
growth of customer migration in the competitive local exchange market 
has affected the ability of long distance carriers to bill for long 
distance services rendered to those customers.
    The CARE process was developed by the telecommunications industry 
in response to the break-up of the Bell System and the introduction of 
competitive long distance services. To facilitate the equal access and 
cooperation among telecommunications providers mandated by the Modified 
Final Judgment, the industry created the Alliance for 
Telecommunications Industry Solutions (``ATIS''), a developer of 
telecommunications standards and operational guidelines that has 124 
member companies, representing nearly every sector of the 
telecommunications industry. The Carrier Liaison Committee of ATIS in 
turn created the Ordering and Billing Forum (``OBF''), which 
established voluntary industry standards for CARE among carriers, based 
on input from all participating segments of the industry. The CARE 
standards were developed to facilitate the exchange of customer account 
information to allow LECs to comply with their obligation to provide 
all interexchange carriers with access that is equal in type, quality, 
and price to that provided to AT&T and its affiliates. CARE generically 
identifies data elements that might be shared between carriers and 
supports a data format intended to facilitate the mechanized exchange 
of that information. It aims to provide a consistent definition and 
data format for the exchange of common data elements.
    Historically, incumbent LECs managed the exchange of customer data 
between themselves and the various interexchange carriers that were 
competing for the provision of long distance services. When a customer 
elected to change long distance carriers, or otherwise changed his or 
her billing, name, and address (BNA) information, the incumbent LEC 
would provide CARE data to the appropriate interexchange carrier(s) to 
ensure seamless provision of service to the customer.
    Though most LECs and long distance carriers participated in CARE 
prior to 1996, CARE data is not currently exchanged in a uniform manner 
now that the number of LECs has increased significantly. As a result, 
interexchange carriers may often be unable to identify local carrier 
lines in the current competitive marketplace. Interexchange carriers 
may therefore be unaware of whether a customer remains on the network, 
has switched to another local or long distance carrier, has been 
disconnected, or has made changes to BNA information. This can inhibit 
customers' ability to move seamlessly from one carrier to another, and 
can result in substantial increases in unbillable calls and customer 
complaints. These problems may also arise in the context of customers 
porting wireline telephone numbers to wireless carriers. In addition, 
carriers may be viewed as being responsible for double or continued 
billing, cramming, slamming, or violations of the Commission's truth-
in-billing requirements when they do not receive accurate, timely, or 
complete information regarding their customers' accounts.
    On September 5, 2002, Americatel filed a petition for declaratory 
ruling to clarify LEC obligations with regard to the provision of BNA 
service. Specifically, Americatel seeks a declaration that: (1) All 
local exchange carriers, both competitive and incumbent LECs, are 
obligated to provide BNA service, subject to existing safeguards; (2) 
all LECs have an obligation to provide the appropriate presubscribed 
long distance carrier with the identity of the new serving carrier 
whenever one of the LEC's customers changes local service providers; 
and (3) any LEC that no longer serves a particular end user customer 
has an obligation, upon the request of a long distance carrier, to 
indicate which other LEC is now providing service to such end user 
customer. Americatel also requests that we require all carriers to 
exchange customer billing information under specific parameters 
developed by the industry through the OBF. AT&T, Sprint, and MCI (Joint 
Petitioners) filed a petition on November 22, 2002, requesting that the 
Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require certain 
mandatory CARE obligations for all local and interexchange carriers. 
Under this proposal, all carriers would be required, in specified 
situations, to transmit certain CARE codes to involved carriers that 
are designed to provide specific billing and other essential customer 
data. Joint Petitioners ask that carriers be given flexibility to 
provide for the transmission of required data in a variety of ways, 
including paper (facsimile, U.S. and/or overnight mail), e-mail, 
cartridge, Internet processing, mechanized processing, or real-time 
processing. Joint Petitioners argue that this flexibility will minimize 
implementation costs on the industry, particularly on smaller carriers. 
In addition, Joint Petitioners propose to provide flexibility for 
carriers to use alternate codes for certain transactions, in order to 
minimize potential development costs for carriers that are not already 
providing all of the CARE codes. Finally, Joint Petitioners propose 
that we adopt performance measurements for timeliness, accuracy, and 
completeness of CARE data.
    Fifteen parties filed comments or replies in response to the two 
petitions. While most agree that the concerns raised in the petitions 
have some merit, most also contend that the solutions proposed by 
petitioners are inappropriate or overly broad. Incumbent LECs generally 
argue that they are already providing CARE and BNA data, and that 
petitioners have not demonstrated that the existing CARE process is 
deficient with respect to incumbent LECs. They assert that the problems 
described by petitioners arise due to certain competitive LECs' failure 
to participate in CARE and BNA data exchange, or to provide such 
information to interexchange carriers in the same manner as the 
incumbent LECs. Accordingly, incumbent LECs argue that competitive LECs 
should be the sole focus of any proposed rules. Small and rural LECs in 
particular express concern that mandatory minimum CARE standards will 
impose additional, unnecessary burdens on them.
    After reviewing the petitions and the subsequent comments and 
replies, we believe that the issues raised in the petitions would be 
more appropriately addressed through a notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding than by an immediate ruling on the petitions. Accordingly, 
we seek comment on whether mandatory minimum CARE standards could 
provide consistency within the industry, and could eliminate a 
significant percentage of consumer complaints concerning billing 
errors. We focus here primarily on the proposals outlined in the Joint 
Petition, and do not address Americatel's petition in full at this 
time. In particular, with respect to Americatel's request for 
declaratory relief regarding LECs' BNA service obligations, we note 
that Sec.  64.1201 makes no distinction between the responsibilities of 
independent LECs and competitive LECs, and places the obligations of 
notice and access on all LECs.
    As a general matter, we believe that a uniform process observed by 
all regulated entities--competitive LECs, incumbent LECs, and 
interexchange carriers alike--could also provide a better framework for 
fair and consistent

[[Page 20848]]

enforcement activity by the Commission. We therefore seek comment on 
whether we should impose mandatory minimum CARE obligations on all 
local and interexchange carriers. How extensive are the billing 
problems described in the petitions? Are they sufficiently pervasive 
throughout the industry to warrant regulatory intervention at this 
time? To what extent would adoption of the proposed minimum CARE 
standards place a burden on LECs and interexchange carriers generally? 
The Joint Petitioners have recommended a Minimum CARE Standard composed 
of a subset of the existing OBF CARE/Industry Support Interface 
guideline Transaction Code Status Indicators (TCSIs).
    They state that these recommended TCSIs are essential for an 
interexchange carrier to be able to do all of the following:
     Submit a Preferred Interexchange Carrier (PIC) 
order to the correct LEC on behalf of the end user (01XX TCSIs--0101, 
0104, 0105);
     Know when any LEC has put an end user on the 
interexchange carrier's network (20XX TCSIs--2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2020);
     Know when any LEC has removed an end user from 
the interexchange carrier's network (22XX TCSIs--2201, 2202, 2203, 
2206, 2215, 2216, 2217, 2218, 2219, 2231, 2233, 2234);
     Receive critical changes to the account for the 
end user currently PIC'd at the local switch to the interexchange 
carrier (23XX TCSIs--2317, 2368, 2369);
     Facilitate a request for BNA for end users who 
have usage on the requesting carrier's network where the interexchange 
carrier does not have an existing account for the end user (TCSIs 0501, 
2503, 2504);
     Know whom the LEC has suspended or blocked from 
using the carrier network due to collection or fraud issues to allow 
the PIC'd interexchange carrier to take appropriate steps necessary to 
maintain customer continuity with the carriers network and/or calling 
card process (27XX TCSIs--2710, 2711, 2716, 2717, 2720, 2721); and
     Receive a notification of order failure with a 
reason specific to the order to allow the interexchange carrier to 
correct the order or take alternative steps (all applicable reject 
TCSIs--21XX, 31XX, 41XX, 26XX).
    We seek comment on whether, if we were to adopt minimum CARE 
standards, the Joint Petitioner's proposed standard is appropriate and 
adequate to address the concerns raised in the petitions. Are any 
modifications to these proposals necessary? Cox notes that, to the 
extent any new standards adopted are appropriate and are truly minimal, 
they should be applied to all LECs, and should not create any 
meaningful burden on incumbent LECs who are already interacting with 
interexchange carriers. We seek comment on this view. In addition, 
should all LECs, including competitive LECs, be required to notify the 
appropriate presubscribed long distance carrier whenever a specific 
customer changes local service providers, as Americatel requests? 
Should all LECs that no longer serve a particular end user customer be 
required, upon the request of a long distance carrier, to indicate 
which other carrier is providing local service to that customer? To the 
extent commenters suggest modifications or other alternatives to 
petitioners' proposals, commenters should specifically outline the 
minimum data exchange necessary to address the problems described in 
the petitions.
    In the Wireless LNP Order, we acknowledged that the billing 
problems described by Joint Petitioners may also arise in the context 
of wireline-to-wireless number porting. As AT&T explains, where a 
stand-alone interexchange carrier customer exercises the right to port 
a wireline telephone number to a wireless carrier, there are no 
procedures currently in place requiring notification of interexchange 
carriers that the customer has selected a wireless carrier to provide 
long distance service. As a result, those customers may continue to be 
billed by their former interexchange carrier unless and until they 
advise that carrier that they are discontinuing their long distance 
service. We note that analogous Interexchange Carrier (IXC) 
notification issues do not arise in the context of wireless-to-wireline 
porting. Because wireless carriers typically provide for long distance 
as part of their service to customers, wireless customers do not have a 
separate commercial relationship with an IXC and are not separately 
billed by the IXC. Accordingly, if a wireless customer ports to a 
wireline carrier, there is no need for separate notification to the IXC 
that the wireless service is being discontinued.
    We seek comment on these wireline-to-wireless number porting 
concerns. Have consumers or carriers experienced such problems yet, and 
if so, to what extent have they arisen so far? What have those carriers 
that have experienced local number porting billing issues done to 
address them and prevent them from recurring? The Joint Petitioners 
have suggested that a possible solution to this problem would be to 
require LECs to notify IXCs when a local exchange number is ported from 
a wireline to a wireless carrier. One possibility might be a CARE code 
that would add a ``W'' designation for local lines that are ported to 
wireless carriers. We seek comment on this and any other proposals for 
addressing billing issues in wireline-to-wireless number porting 
situations. Would a new CARE code be necessary or appropriate under 
these circumstances? What else might be done to prevent the billing 
problems that Joint Petitioners contend may arise in this context? If 
we were to adopt a mandatory minimum CARE standard for wireline-to-
wireless porting, would that standard impose a burden on LECs and/or 
commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers? If so, what steps 
could we take to ameliorate or minimize that burden? Would voluntary 
standards be adequate? We note that, in the circumstance of a wireline-
to-wireless port, the CMRS provider (unlike the LEC) would not 
necessarily know the identity of the customer's presubscribed carrier.
    We also seek comment on the expected implementation costs 
associated with adopting minimum CARE standards, as well as the 
appropriate allocation of those costs. Commenters should also discuss 
how, if we adopt minimum CARE standards, we can provide sufficient 
flexibility to protect carriers, particularly small and/or rural LECs, 
from unduly burdensome requirements. Joint Petitioners claim that their 
proposal, which would require carriers to use fewer than five percent 
of the total CARE codes developed by ATIS, provides for transmission of 
required data in a variety of ways, provides flexibility for carriers 
to utilize alternate codes for certain transactions, and minimizes 
start-up costs and potential development costs for all carriers that 
are not already providing CARE data. Will these steps sufficiently 
alleviate the cost concerns raised in the comments on the petitions? 
Are there further, or perhaps better, steps we should consider to 
minimize the cost and burdens of imposing mandatory CARE standards, 
particularly for small and/or rural carriers?
    We also seek comment on Joint Petitioners' request that we provide 
for ``reasonable'' performance measurements for any minimum CARE 
standards that we adopt. Joint Petitioners have identified specific 
recommendations for timeliness, accuracy and completeness thresholds. 
Specifically, they propose: (1) Timeliness thresholds for the various

[[Page 20849]]

CARE processing methods (real-time, mechanized, e-mail or internet, and 
cartridge and paper) that vary from 12 hours to five business days, 
depending on the method employed; (2) that all carriers use ``best 
efforts'' and ``quality practices and methods'' to ensure that the data 
exchange is accurate and complete; and (3) that all carriers use the 
guidelines set forth in the ATIS OBF Equal Access Subscription CARE/
Industry Support Interface document to ensure the accuracy and 
completeness of CARE data. Are these recommendations appropriate or 
necessary? Would other measures provide a more accurate assessment of 
carrier compliance with any minimum standards we might adopt?
    Americatel agrees that Joint Petitioners' proposals would resolve 
many billing-related issues for presubscribed calls, but states that 
those proposals do not address additional problems associated with 
dial-around traffic, which is subject to greater collection risks and 
fraud because the serving carrier does not have any credit information 
about the customer. Dial-around service providers, who do not have 
established business relationships with their customers, must either 
enter into billing and collection agreements with LECs or obtain BNA 
data from LECs, in order to bill their end users. Americatel supports 
adoption of a line-level database as a comprehensive solution to 
current data exchange problems in the industry.
    In contrast, Joint Petitioners urge us to address these billing 
concerns with a phased approach, first requiring all LECs and 
interexchange carriers to participate in mandatory minimum CARE, and 
later examining the possibility of creating an industry-wide, line 
level database to address billing problems not remedied in the first 
phase. Joint Petitioners believe that mandating minimum CARE standards 
would alleviate a substantial portion of the billing problems faced by 
both pre-subscribed and dial-around service providers.
    Although, as Joint Petitioners acknowledge, establishing a national 
line-level database might provide a more comprehensive solution to the 
billing problems petitioners are experiencing, it appears that 
development and implementation of such a solution would not provide 
relief for petitioners in the short term. As Americatel itself notes, 
the OBF has not been able to reach consensus on a database solution, 
despite several years of review, development and analysis. CARE is an 
already established, industry-developed solution that has worked 
reasonably well in the past, and we believe that establishing uniform, 
minimal CARE obligations for all carriers could more readily and 
quickly provide at least some relief for petitioners than the database 
solution proposed by Americatel. We seek comment on these views.
    Several carriers also argue that the industry-wide OBF is the more 
appropriate venue for addressing these issues. They note that the 
existing CARE process was developed by the industry, and ask the 
Commission to carefully consider the status of industry solutions 
before adopting rules that may increase burdens on the industry. 
According to these commenters, the OBF should be used to address any 
changes to the CARE process because it is better suited to considering 
the technical and operational aspects of the way information will be 
exchanged than a notice and comment rulemaking. Conversely, petitioners 
claim that the OBF has been looking into these billing problems for 
several years now, but has been unable to reach a resolution. OBF has 
been attempting to develop a database solution for the exchange of 
customer billing information among multiple carriers in those cases 
where the customer has changed one or more of its carriers. The 
petitioners assert that they have asked us to address these issues 
precisely because OBF has been unable to do so.
    We seek comment on this debate. Would federally-mandated minimum 
CARE obligations for all carriers restrict the evolution of CARE 
standards? Or would mandatory, nationwide standards merely establish 
uniformity that is currently lacking in the CARE process and prove 
helpful to consumers, carriers, and the Commission?
    Finally, we note that the NARUC Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs 
has been working to draft model carrier change guidelines that could 
help address some of the issues raised by the petitions, in the absence 
of uniform minimum CARE requirements. Once finalized, the NARUC model 
guidelines could be adopted on a state-by-state basis to address 
customer account record concerns, but would be superseded by any 
federal rules we might adopt. We seek comment on the NARUC proposals. 
Will these model guidelines adequately address petitioners' concerns?

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. 
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be 
identified as responses to 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. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, this 
NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the 
Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    The CARE system provides a uniform method for the exchange of 
certain information by interexchange carriers and LECs. CARE allows 
these carriers to exchange the data necessary to establish and maintain 
customer accounts, and to execute and confirm customer orders and 
customer transfers from one long distance carrier to another. At the 
time the existing CARE process was developed, incumbent LECs, for the 
most part, did not compete for long distance service, and local markets 
were not competitive. However, subsequent to the passage of the 1996 
Act, the growth of customer migration in the competitive local exchange 
market has affected the ability of long distance carriers to bill for 
long distance services rendered to those customers.
    Though most LECs and long distance carriers participated in CARE 
prior to 1996, CARE data is not currently exchanged in a uniform manner 
now that the number of LECs has increased significantly. This can 
inhibit customers' ability to move seamlessly from one carrier to 
another, and can result in substantial increases in unbillable calls 
and customer complaints. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
seeks comment on whether the Commission should impose mandatory minimum 
CARE obligations on all local and interexchange carriers. The NPRM also 
seeks comment on whether such billing problems may also arise in the 
context of wireline-to-wireless number porting and, if so, what might 
be done to prevent such problems that may arise in this context?

Legal Basis

    The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this 
NPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 206-208 and 258 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 
154(j), 201, 206-208 and 258, and sections 1.421 and 1.429 of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.421 and 1.429.

[[Page 20850]]

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rules Will Apply

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under section 3 of the 
Small Business Act. Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business 
concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    We have included small incumbent LECs in this 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 wireline 
telecommunications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is 
not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy 
contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant 
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not 
``national'' in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs 
in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no 
effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-
RFA contexts.
    Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for providers 
of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size 
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,337 
incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in 
the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,337 carriers, an 
estimated 1,032 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 305 have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of providers of local exchange service are small entitles that 
may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for providers 
of competitive local exchange services. The closest applicable size 
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 609 
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either 
competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange 
carrier services. Of these 609 companies, an estimated 458 have 1,500 
or fewer employees, and 151 have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers 
of competitive local exchange service are small entities that may be 
affected by the rules.
    Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a specific size standard for competitive access providers 
(CAPs). The closest applicable standard under the SBA rules is for 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's 
Telephone Trends Report data, 609 CAPs or competitive local exchange 
carriers and 51 other local exchange carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services 
or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 609 
competitive access providers and competitive local exchange carriers, 
an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 151 have more than 
1,500 employees. Of the 51 other local exchange carriers, an estimated 
50 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of small 
entity CAPs and the majority of other local exchange carriers may be 
affected by the rules.
    Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for 
small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. 
Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 133 
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local 
resale services. Of these 133 companies, an estimated 127 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees, and six have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers may be 
affected by the rules.
    Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for 
small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. 
Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 
625 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of toll 
resale services. Of these 625 companies, an estimated 590 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees, and 35 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that a majority of toll resellers may be 
affected by the rules.
    Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically 
applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest 
applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's 
Telephone Trends Report data, 261 carriers reported that their primary 
telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange 
services. Of these 261 carriers, an estimated 223 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees, and 38 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, we 
estimate that a majority of interexchange carriers may be affected by 
the rules.
    Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically 
applicable to operator service providers. The closest applicable size 
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 23 
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator 
services. Of these 23 companies, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees, and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of local resellers may be affected 
by the rules.
    Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a size 
standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications 
Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends 
Report data, 37 companies reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these 37 companies, an estimated 
36 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and one has more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
prepaid

[[Page 20851]]

calling providers may be affected by the rules.
    Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically 
applicable to ``Other Toll Carriers.'' This category includes toll 
carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange 
carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, 
satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable 
size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report 
data, 92 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
``Other Toll Services.'' Of these 92 carriers, an estimated 82 have 
1,500 or fewer employees, and ten have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of ``Other Toll 
Carriers'' may be affected by the rules.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities

    As noted, we seek comment on whether mandatory minimum CARE 
standards could provide consistency in the exchange of customer account 
information within the industry, could eliminate a significant 
percentage of consumer complaints concerning billing errors, and 
whether we should impose mandatory minimum CARE obligations on all 
local and interexchange carriers. In the event any new standards are 
adopted, we expect that such standards will be minimal and will provide 
sufficient flexibility in their application that they will not create 
any significant burden on small entities.

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

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (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 such 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. Mandatory Minimum CARE Requirements. The NPRM seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should impose mandatory minimum CARE 
obligations on all local and interexchange carriers. We especially seek 
information addressing the possible financial impact of such mandatory 
requirements on smaller carriers. We also ask commenters to discuss 
how, if we were to adopt minimum CARE standards, we could provide 
sufficient flexibility to protect carriers, particularly small/rural 
LECs and CMRS providers, from unduly burdensome requirements. We do not 
have any evidence before us at this time regarding whether the 
proposals outlined in this NPRM would, if adopted, have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, we 
recognize that the RFA requires us to consider that such an impact may 
occur. We therefore seek comment on the potential impact of these 
proposals on small entities, and whether there are any less burdensome 
alternatives that we should consider.

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

    None.

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 
201, 206-208 and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 206-208 and 258 and sections 1.421 and 
1.429 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.421 and 1.429, that the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 02-386 is adopted.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-8481 Filed 4-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P