[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 25, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30044-30049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10118]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 98-170 and CG Docket No. 04-208; FCC 05-55]


Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format; National Association of 
State Utility Consumer Advocates' Petition for Declaratory Ruling 
Regarding Truth-in-Billing

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on where to 
draw the line between the Commission's jurisdiction and states' 
jurisdiction over the billing practices of Commercial Mobile Radio 
Service (CMRS) and other interstate carriers. In addition, the proposed 
rules seek comment on how the Commission should define the distinction 
between mandated and non-mandated charges for truth-in-billing 
purposes, and how states can be involved in enforcing point of sale 
disclosure rules the Commission has proposed.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 24, 2005, and reply comments 
are due July 25, 2005. Written comments on the proposed information 
collection(s) must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) and other interested parties on or before July 25, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [docket number and/or 
rulemaking number], by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Jacobs, Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-2512 (voice), or e-mail 
[email protected]. For additional

[[Page 30045]]

information concerning the PRA information collection requirements 
contained in this document, contact Leslie Smith at (202) 418-0217, or 
via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Second Further Notice), Truth-in-Billing and Billing 
Format; National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates' 
Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Truth-in-Billing, CC Docket 
No. 98-170 and CG Docket No. 04-208, FCC 05-55, contains proposed 
information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review under Sec.  3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general 
public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the 
proposed information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding.
    This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice, 
adopted March 10, 2005, and released March 18, 2005. Pursuant to 
sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 
1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or 
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments 
may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) 
by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting 
comments.
     For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one 
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number 
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. 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, 
filers should send an e-mail to [email protected], and include the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
     Paper Filers: 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, 
filers 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 Service 
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. 
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     The Commission's contractor 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, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request materials in 
accessible formats (braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format, etc.) by e-mail at [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 
(TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This Second Further Notice contains proposed information collection 
requirements. 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 collection 
requirements contained in this Second Further Notice, as required by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and 
agency comments are due July 25, 2005. 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.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0854.
    Title: Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format; National Association of 
State Utility Consumer Advocates' Petition for Declaratory Ruling 
Regarding Truth-in-Billing, CC Docket No. 98-170 and CG Docket No. 04-
208, FCC 05-55.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents: 5309.
    Estimated Time per Response: 49-243 hours per response.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion; Third party disclosure 
reporting requirement.
    Total Annual Burden: 2,335,960 burden hours.
    Total Annual Cost: $0.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: No.
    Needs and Uses: On March 18, 2005, the Commission released a Second 
Further Notice, Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format; National 
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates' Petition for 
Declaratory Ruling Regarding Truth-in-Billing, which proposes and seeks 
comment on measures to enhance the ability of consumers to make 
informed choices among competitive telecommunications providers. These 
proposed measures include, among others, carriers separating government 
mandated charges from other charges on bills, and disclosing the full 
rate to the consumer at the point of sale before the consumer signs any 
contract for the carrier's services.

Synopsis

    In soliciting comment on the NASUCA Petition, the Commission noted 
that the NASUCA Petition raised issues implicated in the Commission's 
Truth-in-Billing proceeding. However, the broader issue of the role of 
states in regulating billing was addressed primarily in reply comments 
and ex parte submissions, and received only cursory treatment in 
comments on the NASUCA Petition. Given the importance and complexity of 
this broader issue, this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
is

[[Page 30046]]

appropriate in order to garner as complete and up-to-date a record as 
possible and invite commenters to refresh the record on any issues from 
the Truth-in-Billing Order Further Notice, published at 64 FR 34499, 
June 25, 1999, that we have not addressed. In the Truth-in-Billing 
Order, published at 64 FR 34488, June 25, 1999, the Commission required 
carriers that list charges in separate line items to identify certain 
of such line item charges through standard industry-wide labels and to 
provide full, clear and non-misleading descriptions of the nature of 
the charges. The Commission sought comment on the specific labels that 
carriers should adopt, while tentatively concluding that such labels 
will, without unduly burdening carriers, identify adequately the 
charges and provide consumers with a basis for comparison among 
carriers. In addition, while declining to formulate standardized 
descriptions for billed services, the Commission encouraged carriers to 
develop uniform terminology for such descriptions. The Commission also 
encouraged industry and consumer groups to consider further whether 
some categorization of charges would be advisable. Nearly six years 
after adoption of the Truth-in-Billing Order, the record reflects that 
consumers still experience a tremendous amount of confusion regarding 
their bills, which inhibits their ability to compare carriers' service 
and price offerings, in contravention of the pro-competitive framework 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``1996 Act''). To help alleviate 
this situation, consistent with the recommendations of commenters such 
as the Ohio PUC, the Commission tentatively concludes that where 
carriers choose to list charges in separate line items on their 
customers' bills, government mandated charges must be placed in a 
section of the bill separate from all other charges. The Commission 
also solicits comment on how it should define the distinction between 
mandated and non-mandated charges for truth-in-billing purposes. The 
Commission also encourages commenters to assess the ease or difficulty 
of administering any proposed distinction between government mandated 
and non-mandated charges. In the Truth-in-Billing Further Notice, the 
Commission sought comment on how carriers should identify line items 
that combine two or more federal regulatory charges into a single 
charge. However, in the Truth-in-Billing Order, the Commission also 
expressed concern that where regulatory-related charges are not broken 
down into line items, it facilitates carriers' ability to bury costs in 
lump figures. In light of these conflicting considerations, as well as 
the record developed in response to the NASUCA Petition, the Commission 
now refines its proposal to seek comment on whether it is unreasonable 
under section 201(b) of the Act to combine federal regulatory charges 
into a single line item. The Commission also tentatively concludes that 
it should reverse its prior pronouncement that states may enact and 
enforce more specific truth-in-billing rules than the Commission's. The 
Commission solicits comment on this tentative conclusion. In addition, 
the Commission seeks comment on, if the Commission does adopt this 
tentative conclusion, whether it should limit the scope of what 
constitutes ``consistent truth-in-billing requirements by the states'' 
under 47 CFR 64.2400(c), eliminate Sec.  64.2400(c) from the 
Commission's rules altogether, or adopt an enforcement regime where 
states are permitted to enforce rules developed by the Commission. The 
Commission believes that limiting state regulation of CMRS and other 
interstate carriers' billing practices, in favor of a uniform, 
nationwide, federal regime, will eliminate inconsistent state 
regulation, making nationwide service less expensive for carriers to 
provide and lowering the cost of service to consumers. Accordingly, the 
Commission asks commenters to address the proper boundaries of ``other 
terms and conditions'' under section 332(c)(3)(A) of the Act, and 
generally to delineate what they believe should be the relative roles 
of the Commission and the states in defining carriers' proper billing 
practices. The Commission also tentatively concludes that it should 
adopt point of sale disclosure rules, requiring that the carrier 
disclose to the consumer the full rate, including any non-mandated line 
items and a reasonable estimate of government mandated surcharges, 
before the consumer signs any service contract. Finally, the Commission 
solicits comment on whether and how to adopt an enforcement regime in 
which states are permitted to enforce rules developed by the Commission 
regarding point of sale disclosures. For example, Commission rules 
against slamming provide that state commissions may elect to administer 
these slamming rules. In adopting the slamming rules, however, the 
Commission recognized that not all states have the resources to resolve 
slamming complaints, or may not choose to take on such primary 
responsibility for administering them, so the Commission also adopted 
rules allowing consumers in those states to file slamming complaints 
with the Commission. In this regard, the Commission asks whether its 
slamming rules provide a good model for rules that it may develop for 
point of sale disclosures. The Commission also asks whether, if it 
adopts an enforcement regime akin to that in the Commission's slamming 
rules, it should also establish rules prescribing specific penalty 
amounts and procedures for point of sale disclosure violations, like 
the penalty provisions in the Commission's slamming rules? The 
Commission encourages commenters to address how states can administer 
the process of any penalty scheme that it establishes.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), (see 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, Public Law Number 104-121, Title II, 110 Statute 857 (1996)), 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 Second Further 
Notice. 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 Second Further Notice provided above in 
section VI (D). The Commission will send a copy of the Second Further 
Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, this 
Second Further Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    The Commission determined that significant consumer concerns with 
the billing practices of wireless and other interstate providers raised 
in this proceeding, and outstanding issues from the 1999 Truth-in-
Billing Order and Further Notice, require that the Commission clarify 
certain aspects of its existing rules and policies affecting billing 
for telephone service. Consumer confusion over telephone bills inhibits 
the ability of consumers to compare carriers' price and service 
offerings, thus undermining the proper functioning of competitive 
markets for telecommunications services, in contravention of the pro-
competitive

[[Page 30047]]

framework prescribed by Congress in the 1996 Act. Therefore, the 
Commission proposes and seeks comment on additional measures to 
facilitate the ability of telephone consumers to make informed choices 
among competitive telecommunications service offerings.
    In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the distinction 
between government ``mandated'' and other charges, and tentatively 
concludes that where carriers choose to list charges in separate line 
items on their customers' bills, government mandated charges must be 
placed in a section of the bill separate from all other charges. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether it is unreasonable to combine 
federal regulatory charges into a single line item, though any 
commenter who still believes that carriers should be able to combine 
two or more of these charges into a single charge is welcome to refresh 
the record on how carriers should identify such line items.
    Furthermore, the Commission tentatively concludes that carriers 
must disclose the full rate, including any non-mandated line items and 
a reasonable estimate of government mandated surcharges, to the 
consumer at the point of sale, and that such disclosure must occur 
before the customer signs any contract for the carrier's services.
    These proposed rules are designed to discourage misleading billing 
practices, and thereby aid consumers in understanding their 
telecommunications bills, and to provide consumers with the tools they 
need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications 
service.

Legal Basis

    The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this 
Second Further Notice is contained in sections 1-4, 201, 202, 206-208, 
258, 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151-154, 201, 202, 206-208, 258, 303(r), and 332; Sec.  601(c) 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and Sec. Sec.  1.421, 64.2400, 
and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.421, 64.2400, and 
64.2401.

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. (See 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.'' (See 5 U.S.C. 601(6)). In 
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term 
``small business concern'' under Sec.  3 of the Small Business Act. 
(See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of 
``small business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). 
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small 
business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with the Office 
of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term 
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
such definitions(s) in the Federal Register.'') 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). (See 15 U.S.C. 632).
    The Commission has 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.'' (See 13 
CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110) 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 Chairman William E. Kennard, 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 
5 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)). The Commission 
therefore has included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, 
although the Commission emphasizes 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 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. (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110) According to the 
FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,310 incumbent local exchange 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local 
exchange services. (See FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry 
Analysis and Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 
5.3, p. 5-5 (May 2004) (Telephone Trends Report). This source uses data 
that are current as of October 22, 2003). Of these 1,310 carriers, an 
estimated 1,025 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 285 have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of providers of local exchange service are small entities that 
may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    Competitive Local Exchange Carriers and Competitive Access 
Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed specific 
small business size standards for providers of competitive local 
exchange services or competitive access providers (CAPs). 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. (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS 
code 517110) According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 563 
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either 
competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange 
carrier services. (See Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. The data are 
grouped together in the Telephone Trends Report). Of these 563 
companies, an estimated 472 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 91 have 
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
the majority of providers of competitive local exchange service and 
CAPs are small entities that 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. (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310). According to the 
FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 127 companies reported that they 
were engaged in the provision of local resale services. (See Telephone 
Trends Report, Table 5.3). Of these 127 companies, an estimated 121 
have 1,500 or fewer employees, and six have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission

[[Page 30048]]

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. (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310). According to 
the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 645 companies reported that 
they were engaged in the provision of toll resale services. (See 
Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3). Of these 645 companies, an 
estimated 619 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 26 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. (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS 
code 517110). According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 281 
carriers reported that their primary telecommunications service 
activity was the provision of interexchange services. (See Telephone 
Trends Report, Table 5.3). Of these 281 carriers, an estimated 254 have 
1,500 or fewer employees, and 27 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 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. 
(See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110). According to the FCC's 
Telephone Trends Report data, 21 companies reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of operator services. (See Telephone Trends 
Report, Table 5.3). Of these 21 companies, an estimated 20 have 1,500 
or fewer employees, and one has more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of operator 
service providers may be affected by the rules.
    Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a 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. 
( See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110). According to the FCC's 
Telephone Trends Report data, 65 carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of ``Other Toll Services.'' (See Telephone 
Trends Report, Table 5.3). Of these 65 carriers, an estimated 62 have 
1,500 or fewer employees, and three have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of ``Other Toll 
Carriers'' may be affected by the rules.
    Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census 
categories of ``Paging'' (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211) and 
``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' (See 13 CFR 
121.201, NAICS code 517212). Under both SBA categories, a wireless 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census 
category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 
1,320 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. 
(See U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
``Information,'' Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal 
Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513321 (issued October 2000). Of this 
total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an 
additional 17 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. (See 
U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
``Information,'' Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal 
Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513321 (issued October 2000). The census 
data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category 
provided is ``Firms with 1000 employees or more.'') Thus, under this 
category and associated small business size standard, the great 
majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category 
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 
1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category, total, that 
operated for the entire year. (See U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic 
Census, Subject Series: ``Information,'' Table 5, Employment Size of 
Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513322 (issued 
October 2000). Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees 
or more. (See U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
``Information,'' Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal 
Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513322 (issued October 2000). The census 
data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category 
provided is ``Firms with 1000 employees or more.''). Thus, under this 
second category and size standard, the great majority of firms can, 
again, be considered small.

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

    As noted, the Commision tentatively concludes that where carriers 
choose to list charges in separate line items on their customers' 
bills, government mandated charges must be placed in a section of the 
bill separate from all other charges; and that carriers must disclose 
the full rate, including any non-mandated line items and a reasonable 
estimate of government mandated surcharges, to the consumer at the 
point of sale. Furthermore, the Commission seeks comment on whether it 
is unreasonable to combine federal regulatory charges into a single 
line item. However, the Commission also tentatively concludes that it 
should reverse its prior holding permitting states to enact and enforce 
telecommunications carrier-specific truth-in-billing rules. This 
tentative conclusion is designed to address the potential for 
inconsistent state regulation of CMRS and other interstate carrier 
billing practices, and thereby simplify the requirements for such 
carriers' compliance with potentially disparate billing regulations. 
Aside from simplifying procedural compliance requirements for small 
entities, we expect that this measure also will alleviate some 
compliance costs for 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

[[Page 30049]]

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. (See 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4)).
    As described above, the Commission seeks comment on the distinction 
between government ``mandated'' and other charges, and tentatively 
concludes that where carriers choose to list charges in separate line 
items on their customers' bills, government mandated charges must be 
placed in a section of the bill separate from all other charges. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether it is unreasonable to combine 
federal regulatory charges into a single line item, though any 
commenter who still believes that carriers should be able to combine 
two or more of these charges into a single charge is welcome to refresh 
the record on how carriers should identify such line items. 
Furthermore, the Commission tentatively concludes that carriers must 
disclose the full rate, including any non-mandated line items and a 
reasonable estimate of government mandated surcharges, to the consumer 
at the point of sale, and that such disclosure must occur before the 
customer signs any contract for the carrier's services. For each of 
these issues and tentative conclusions, the Commission seeks comment on 
the effects its proposals would have on small entities, and whether any 
rules it adopts should apply differently to small entities.
    For instance, the Second Further Notice seeks comment on whether 
the Commission should require standardized labeling of categories of 
charges on consumers' bills, and what the monetary costs of such a 
requirement would be. The Commission particularly seeks comment on the 
nature of the economic impact of such a requirement on small entities, 
and whether the proposed requirement should be applied to them in any 
manner different from its application to entities that do not qualify 
as small entities. In addition, the Commission tentatively concludes 
that carriers must disclose the full rate, including any non-mandated 
line items and a reasonable estimate of government mandated surcharges, 
to the consumer at the point of sale, and that such disclosure must 
occur before the customer signs any contract for the carrier's 
services. The Commission specifically seeks comment on the effect of 
these tentative conclusions on small entities, and on whether it would 
be appropriate to apply whatever provisions the Commission adopts to 
small entities in the same manner that it applies them to entities that 
do not qualify as small.
    The Commission does not have any evidence before it at this time 
regarding whether proposals outlined in this Second Further Notice 
would, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. However, the Commission recognizes that 
mandating changes to the format of consumers' bills, and specific point 
of sale disclosures, likely would result in additional burdens on small 
CMRS providers and other interstate carriers. The Commission therefore 
seeks comment on the potential impact of these proposals on small 
entities, and whether there are any less burdensome alternatives that 
it should consider.

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

    In seeking comment on its tentative conclusion that government 
mandated charges should be placed in a section of the bill separate 
from all other charges, where carriers choose to list charges in 
separate line items on their customers' bills, the Commission notes 
that: (1) Sec.  64.2400(a) of the Commission's rules provides that the 
truth-in-billing rules are intended ``to aid customers in understanding 
their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with the tools they 
need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications 
service''; and (2) Sec.  64.2401(b) requires that descriptions of 
billed charges be brief, clear, non-misleading, and in plain language. 
The Commission seeks comment on its stated belief that separating 
government mandated charges from all other charges satisfies the policy 
goals embedded in these rules. Though any rules that the Commission may 
adopt to implement this tentative conclusion may overlap somewhat with 
47 CFR 64.2400(a) and 64.2401(b), the Commission believes that these 
new rules would complement the existing rules, rather than duplicating 
them or conflicting with them.
    In tentatively concluding that bases other than the rate regulation 
proscription of Sec.  332(c)(3)(A) exist for the Commission to preempt 
state regulation of carriers' billing practices, the Commission 
tentatively concludes further that it should reverse its prior 
pronouncement that states may enact and enforce more specific truth-in-
billing rules than the Commission's. In large part, this pronouncement 
has been embodied by the substance of 47 CFR 64.2400(c). The Commission 
seeks comment on, if it does adopt this further tentative conclusion, 
whether it should limit the scope of what constitutes ``consistent 
truth-in-billing requirements by the states'' under 47 CFR 64.2400(c), 
eliminate Sec.  64.2400(c) from its rules altogether, or adopt an 
enforcement regime where states are permitted to enforce rules 
developed by the Commission. Thus, the Commission's tentative 
conclusions may conflict with 47 CFR 64.2400(c), or may overlap with 
that rule in a manner in which the existing rule may be harmonized with 
the Commission's tentative conclusions.

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 201, 202, 206-
208, 258, 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201, 202, 206-208, 258, 303(r), and 332; 
section 601(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and Sec. Sec.  
1.421, 64.2400 and 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.421, 
64.2400, and 64.2401, the second further notice of proposed rulemaking 
is adopted.
    The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of the Second Further 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. 05-10118 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P