[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5160-5166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2703]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 43, 63, 64, and 65
[CC Docket No. 96-23, DA 96-1873]
Revision of Filing Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 8, 1996, the Common Carrier Bureau adopted a
Report and Order, ``Revision of Filing Requirements,'' that eliminates
or significantly reduces reporting requirements imposed on
communications common carriers by the Commission's policies and rules.
As a result of this action, thirteen reporting requirements have been
eliminated, and the frequency of filing for four other reports has been
reduced.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas J. Beers, Deputy Chief, Industry Analysis Division, Common
Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-0952, or Scott Bergmann, Industry Analysis
Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-7102.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Common Carrier
Bureau's Report and Order, ``Revision of Filing Requirements,'' adopted
November 8, 1996 and released November 13, 1996 (CC Docket No. 96-23,
DA 96-1873). The full text of the Report and Order is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, Washington, DC 20554. The
Report and Order has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and has been approved in
accordance with the provisions of that Act (OMB Control No. 3060-0701).
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) offered its strong support
for the actions as proposed. The complete text also may be purchased
from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
Service, Inc. (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: The actions taken regarding the collections of
information contained in the Report and Order have been analyzed with
respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
OMB control number 3060-0701. OMB offered its strong support for the
actions. In addition, OMB made three suggestions in addition to the
proposals: (1) That the word ``annual'' be added to the revised
language for Sec. 65.600(b) \1\ to make clear that the reports are
required on an annual basis; (2) that the Commission conduct a
rulemaking to address the filing requirements associated with the ARMIS
and CAM reporting thresholds; and (3) that the Commission consider
modifying the annual access tariff filing periods to coincide with the
periods covered by the interstate rate of return monitoring reports.\2\
First, we agree with OMB and ALLTEL that the revised language for
Sec. 65.600(b) should more clearly specify that reports are required on
an annual basis. We believe that the revised language for
Sec. 65.600(b), adopted in the Report and Order, achieves that result.
Second, as discussed at Part IV of the Report and Order, the Commission
will address ARMIS and CAM filing requirements and carrier
classification in another proceeding. Finally, we decline to alter the
annual access tariff filing period because the present schedule allows
the Commission to use the current years rate-of-return reports to
evaluate and calculate annual access tariffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, at 2 (OMB
No. 3060-0701) (released May 30, 1996). OMB suggests a change to
Sec. 65.500(b). We assume this to be a typographical error. ALLTEL,
whose suggestion OMB specifically supports, also suggests a change
to Sec. 65.600(b).
\2\ Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Approval Number: 3060-0701.
Title: Revision of Filing Requirements, CC Docket 96-23, DA 96-
1873.
Form Number: FCC 492.
[[Page 5161]]
Repondents: Business or other for profit, including small
businesses.
Burden Estimate:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Respondents Est. time per resp. Frequency Annual burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Circuit Report............. 0 0 hours.............. 0 per year............... 0 hours.
2. Record Carrier Letter...... 0 0 hours.............. 0 per year............... 0 hours.
3. Report on Inside Wiring 0 0 hours.............. 0 per year............... 0 hours.
Services.
4. FCC 492 Rate of Return..... 35 8 hours.............. 1 per year............... 280 hours.
5. New Service Tracking Report 16 20................... ......................... 104 hours.
6. Report of Unsecured Credit 13 8.................... 1 per year............... 104 hours.
to Political Candidates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Burden: 488 total hours.
Estimated Costs Per Respondent: $0.00.
Needs and Uses: The Commission eliminated thirteen reporting
requirements and reduced the frequency of four reporting requirements
imposed on communications common carriers, including Regional Bell
Operating Companies, other local telephone companies, record carriers,
AT&T and Sprint. The information received will be used to assist the
Federal Communications Commission in performing its public oversight
duties. The actions taken regarding the collection of information
subject to the PRA contained in this Report and Order have been
approved by OMB under OMB control number 3060-0701. OMB Control number
3060-0701 expires 5/31/99.
Summary of the Report and Order
1. In this Report and Order, and pursuant to delegated authority,
we adopt proposals set out in the Commission's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), Revision of Reporting Requirements, to eliminate
thirteen information reporting requirements imposed on communications
common carriers by the Commission's rules and policies.\3\ We also
reduce pursuant to the NPRM, the frequency of filing obligations for
four other reporting requirements imposed pursuant to Commission
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Revision of Filing Requirements, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-23, FCC 96-64, (released February 27,
1996), 61 FR 10522 (March 14, 1996). The Commission delegated to the
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, authority to determine whether to
adopt any of the proposals set forth in that notice of proposed
rulemaking and to issue any necessary reports or orders arising in
that rulemaking. NPRM at para. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Commission in the NPRM proposed to eliminate thirteen, and
reduce the frequency of filing for six, information collection
requirements applied to communications common carriers.\4\ Earlier, the
Commission had ordered the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) to conduct a
review of all reports filed with the Bureau, including those reports
not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.\5\ In fact, the NPRM that
initiated this proceeding is but one instance of the Commission's on-
going commitment to eliminate unnecessary and burdensome regulation,
including reporting requirements.\6\ Other deregulatory initiatives
will follow upon the Commission's continuing review of its statutory
mandate and its own practices and procedures.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at par. 2. While the Commission proposed modify six
reports pursuant to the NPRM, the Commission's proposals concerning
the Automated Reporting and Management Information System (ARMIS)
quality of service reports and the Payphone Compensation reports
have been mooted by the passage of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 and subsequent Commission actions. See 47 U.S. 272(b)(5),
276(b)(1)(A); Revision of Filing Requirements and Implementation of
Section 402(b)(2)(B) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Annual
ARMIS Reports, Order, CC Docket No. 96-23, DA 96-381 (released March
20, 1996), 61 FR 18143 (April 24, 1996) (Annual ARMIS Reports
Order); Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Report and Order, CC Docket 96-128, FCC 96-388 (released September
20, 1996), 61 FR 52307 (October 7, 1996) (Payphone Compensation
Order). See also Part IV of the Report and Order.
\5\ NPRM at para. 2.
\6\ NPRM at para. 27.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In this proceeding, commenters \8\ generally support the
Commission's proposals,\9\ while several urge the Commission to go
further and delete or modify reporting requirements other than those
set out in the NPRM.\10\ Although we in almost all cases deny these
requests as going beyond the scope of this proceeding, we will take
into account the commenters' suggestions during our continuing
review.\11\ Any further action will be undertaken only after affording
opportunity for comment on discrete proposals in appropriate
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Fifteen parties filed comments in this proceeding. Six of
these parties and three additional parties filed reply comments.
Appendix A of the Report and Order lists the commenters as well as
the short names this Report and Order uses to refer to them.
Additionally, on April 26, 1996, APCC filed a Request for leave to
File Late Reply Comments, which it further identified as ``Ex Parte
or Late Filed,'' to reply to issues raised in comments filed by AT&T
and Sprint. We grant APCC's petition to the extent that we accept
its comments as informal comments pursuant to Sec. 1.419(b) of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.419(b).
\9\ See, e.g., Pacific Bell Comments at 1-2; NYNEX Comments at
1; Bellsouth Comments at 1; ALLTEL Comments at 1; AT&T Comments at
1; GTE Comments at ii. Other parties directed their comments to
certain proposals contained in the NPRM. See, e.g., CompTel Comments
at 1, n.2 (addressing BOC-filed billing and collection contracts);
NECA Comments at 1 (addressing FCC Form 492 and pooling reports);
INS Comments at 1-2 (addressing, inter alia, semi-annual circuit
reports, but generally ``(applauding) the Commission's efforts to
reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on carriers' and the
Commission's scare resources'').
\10\ See e.g., GTE Comments at ii (endorsing NPRM proposals and
generally urging Bureau to undertake more comprehensive review of
reporting requirements).
\11\ See Part IV of the Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. As a result of this action, the following reports have been
eliminated: Equal Access Progress Report; Construction Budget Summary;
National Security and Emergency Preparedness Effectiveness Report; AT&T
Customer Premises Equipment and Installation Maintenance Report; AT&T
Nondiscrimination Report for Enhanced Service Providers; AT&T Service
Quality: Equipment Blockage and Failure Report; Bell Operating Company
(BOC) Customer Premises Equipment Installation and Maintenance Report;
BOC Customer Premises Equipment Affidavits for Nondiscriminatory
Provision of Network Maintenance; BOC Sales Agency Program and Vendor
Support Program Report; Billing and Collection Contracts Report;
Circuit Report; Record Carrier Letter; and Report on Inside Wiring.
5. In addition, the filing frequency for the following reports has
been significantly reduced: Form 492--Rate of Return Report (from
quarterly to annual submissions); Joint Board Monitoring Program--
Pooling Report (from monthly to quarterly submissions); New Service
Tracking Report (from quarterly to annual submissions); and Report of
Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates (from semi-annual annual
submissions).
[[Page 5162]]
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
A. Introduction
1. The Commission in the NPRM concluded that an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) mandated in certain circumstances by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) was not required as there were no
small entities affected by the proposals described in the NPRM.\12\
After the NPRM was adopted, however, Congress amended the RFA in the
Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Public Law No.
104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).\13\ Pursuant to the amended requirements
of the RFA and after further consideration of the potential economic
impact on small entities, the Report and Order includes a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) as set out below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NPRM at para. 22.
\13\ Subtitle II of the CWAAA is ``The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996'' (SBREFA), codified at 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Need for and Objectives of the Rules and Actions Taken
2. In the Report and Order, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau),
upon delegated authority from the Commission, eliminates thirteen
reporting requirements and modifies four others so as to significantly
reduce the frequency by which affected entities must file information
with the Commission. The Bureau takes these actions in furtherance of
the President's Regulatory Reform Initiative and the overall de-
regulatory objectives of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This action is
part of the Commission's and Bureau's continuing efforts to reduce the
regulatory burden on the public by reducing the amount of information
the public must provide to the Commission. In short, the results of the
Bureau's actions in the Report and Order are entirely deregulatory and
represent significant reductions of the burdens imposed on the public--
including small entities. No additional or substitute burdens are
imposed on the public to replace the reporting requirements that are
eliminated.
C. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to
the IRFA
3. As explained in paragraph one of the Report and Order, the
Commission in the NPRM concluded that an IRFA was not required and, as
a result, no comments were filed addressing such an analysis. In
general, however, the commenters praised and supported the
Commissions's proposed deregulatory actions. In fact, no party opposed
any of the deregulatory actions adopted in the Report and Order. While
not every partly discussed every action proposed in the NPRM, the
overwhelming consensus was that the actions taken in the Report and
Order--all of which serve either to eliminate or reduce filing burdens
imposed by regulation--would serve the public interest. Some parties
encouraged the Commission to make additional revisions to reporting
requirements beyond those proposed in the NPRM.\14\ Accordingly, we
conclude that nothing in the record demonstrates that small entities
will be adversely affected by implementation of the Report and Order.
This conclusion is bolstered by the supportive comments of USTA, whose
members include small and mid-size companies.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See generally Part IV of the Report and Order, (discussing
proposals to revise reports not discussed in the NPRM); see also
Part III of the Report and Order, (discussing commenters' proposals
to eliminate reports that the Commission proposed for modification).
See, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 5-6 (urging the Commission to
eliminate ARMIS Reports 43-01, 43-02, and 43-03).
\15\ See USTA Comments at 1-3; USTA Reply Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Businesses to Which
Rules and Actions Will Apply
4. For purposes of this analysis, we examined the relevant
definition of ``small entity'' or ``small business'' and applied this
definition to examine those entities that are subject to the reporting
requirements in question. The RFA defines a ``small business'' to be
the same as a ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act,
15 U.S.C. 632, unless the Commission has developed one or more
definitions that are appropriate to its activities.\16\ Under the Small
Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).\17\ Moreover, SBA has defined a
small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category
481 (Telephone Communications) to be small entities when they have
fewer than 1,500 employees.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the
definition of ``small business concern'' in 5 U.S.C.
\17\ 15 U.S.C. 632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc.
v. Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82, 89 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
\18\ 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. As an initial matter we note that, as demonstrated by the
following list, the entities affected by the vast majority of the
deregulatory actions taken by the Bureau in the Report and Order are
among the largest communications companies, namely, AT&T, Sprint, the
Regional (Bell) Holding Companies (RHCs), and the Bell Operating
Companies (BOCs):
(1) Equal Access Progress Report: submitted by AT&T and RHCs;
(2) Construction Budget Summary: submitted by AT&T and RHCs;
(3) National Security and Emergency Preparedness Effectiveness
Report (NSEP Report): submitted annually by AT&T and Bellcore;
(4) AT&T Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): Installation &
Maintenance Report;
(5) AT&T Service Quality: Equipment Blockage and Failure Report;
(6) AT&T Nondiscrimination Report for Enhanced Service Providers;
(7) BOC Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) Affidavits for Non-
Discrimination Provision of Network Maintenance;
(8) BOC Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) Installation &
Maintenance Report;
(9) BOC Sales Agency Program and Vendor Support Program Report;
(10) Billing and Collection Contracts: submitted by incumbent local
exchange carriers (ILECs).
(11) Circuit Report: filed by 36 nondominant carriers.
(12) Record Carrier Letter: filed by record carriers with operating
revenues over $75 million.
(13) Report on Inside Wiring Service: filed by ILECs with operating
revenues over $100 million;
(14) Form 492 Rate of Return Report: filed by ILECs not subject to
price cap regulation and the National Exchange Carrier Association
(NECA);
(15) Joint Board Monitoring Program: Pooling: submitted by NECA;
(16) New Service Tracking Report: submitted by ILECs subject to
price-cap regulation;
(17) Report of Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates: submitted
by all carriers having revenue in excess of $1 million.
6. Setting aside the ten actions that are addressed exclusively to
some of the largest communications entities, only the adopted actions
addressing the following reports would appear to possibly implicate
some small entities: (3) NSEP Report; (10) Billing and Collection; (11)
Circuit Report; (12) Record Carrier Letter; (14) Form 492 Rate of
Return Report; (15) Joint Board Monitoring Program; and (17) Report of
Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates. Moreover, it is easy to
quantify the number of all entities (i.e., including a putative smaller
number of small entities) affected by four of the
[[Page 5163]]
seven actions not addressed exclusively to the largest entities. Thus,
action (3), NSEP Report, affects only one entity other than AT&T
(Bellcore); action (11), Circuit Report, affects only 36 entities;
action (12), Record Carrier Letter, affects only two entities; and
action (15), Joint Board Monitoring Program, affects only one entity
(NECA). Assuming, arguendo, that some of these affected entities are
``small business'' or ``small entities,'' the subset of such putative
small businesses or entities could only, by definition, equal and not
exceed the forty (40) members that, at a maximum, constitute the
affected entity set for these four actions. Furthermore, the regulatory
actions adopted in the Report and Order, in every case, effect
reductions in regulatory burdens: as a result of the Report and Order,
fewer regulatory burdens are imposed on all affected entities, large
and small alike.
7. Thus, only three of the report-related actions adopted in the
Report and Order are addressed to entity groups for which small
business or entity subsets, per SBA definition, are difficult to
identify and quantify: (10) Billing and Collection (submitted by all
ILECs); (14) Form 492 Rate of Return Report (filed by NECA and all
ILECs not subject to price cap regulation); and (17) Report of
Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates (submitted by all carriers
having revenue in excess of $1 million). We proceed to consider these
entity groups.
8. First, addressing the groups ``all ILECs'' and ``all ILECs not
subject to price cap regulations,'' we note that only one action, (10),
Billing and Collection, affects ILECs generally, while a second, (14)
Rate of Return Report, affects one readily identifiable entity (NECA)
and a subset of ``all ILECs'' that excludes the largest ILECs (i.e.,
``all ILECs not subject to price cap regulation''). Furthermore, we
note that the Commission has found ILECs to be ``dominant in their
field of operation'' since the early 1980's, and consistently has
certified under the RFA \19\ that ILECs are not subject to regulatory
flexibility analyses because they are not small businesses.\20\ The
Commission has made similar determinations in other areas.\21\ We
firmly believe that the Commission's consistent and long-standing
definitional treatment of all ILECs as dominant (and hence exempt from
treatment as small businesses under prong (2) of the SBA test set out
supra) should not be altered here. We will, however, out of an
abundance of caution and prudence, include small ILECs, as defined in
relation to SBA SIC 481, in this FRFA to remove any possible issue of
RFA compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
\20\ See, e.g., Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone
Company Facilities, Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6
FCC Rcd 5809 (1991), 56 FR 52496 (October 21, 1991).
\21\ See, e.g., Implementation of Sections of the Cable
Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Sixth
Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd
7393, 7418 (1995), 60 FR 35854 (July 12, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of
small providers of local exchange services. The closest applicable
definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies
other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies (SIC 4813). The most
reliable source of information regarding the number of ILECs nationwide
of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually
in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).
According to our most recent data, 1,347 companies reported that they
were engaged in the provision of local exchange services.\22\ Although
it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently
owned and operated (prong 1 of the SBA definition of small business
concerns), or have more than 1,500 employees (prong 3), we are unable
at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of ILECs
that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition.
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,347 small ILECs
that may be affected by the actions adopted in the Report and Order.
Again, in every case, these actions either eliminate or reduce the
regulatory burdens imposed on any such small ILECs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis
Division, ``Telecommunications Industry Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet
Data'', Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported
by Class of Carrier) (February 1996) (TRS Worksheet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The final deregulatory action adopted by the Report and Order
poses the most difficulty in identifying affected small business
concerns. Number (17), Report of Unsecured Credit to Political
Candidates, must be submitted by all carriers having revenue in excess
of $1 million. The relevant set of small business concerns affected by
this report obviously includes the set of ILECs identified above
(``fewer than 1,347 small ILECs'') to the extent that any earn more
than $1 million in annual revenues, but also must include small
business concern from all other carrier groups, including both wireline
and wireless (radiotelephone) carriers.\23\ We first discuss non-LEC
wireline carriers, including interexchange carriers (IXCs), competitive
access providers (CAPs), Operator Service Providers (OSPs), Pay
Telephone Operators, and resellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ SBA has established SIC 4812 to distinguish small entities
providing radiotelephone communications from SIC 4813 small entities
providing telephone communications except radiotelephone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed definitions for
small entities specifically applicable to these wireline service types.
The closest applicable definition under SBA rules for all these service
types is for telephone communications companies other than
radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of
information regarding the number of IXCs, CAPs, OSPs, Pay Telephone
Operators, and resellers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be
the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS. According
to our most recent data: 97 companies reported that they are engaged in
the provision of interexchange services; 30 companies reported that
they are engaged in the provision of competitive access services; 29
companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator
services; 197 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision
of pay telephone services; and 206 companies reported that they are
engaged in the resale of telephone services.\24\ Although it seems
certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and
operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and, further, that within
the potential set of small entities not all would earn annual revenues
in excess of $1 million, we are unable at this time to estimate with
greater precision the number of IXCs, CAPs, OSPs, Pay Telephone
Operators, and resellers that would both qualify as small business
concerns under SBA's definition and be subject to the Report's $1
million annual revenue requirement. Consequently, we estimate that
there are fewer than 97 small entity IXCs; 30 small entity CAPs; 29
small entity OSPs; 197 small entity pay telephone service providers;
and 206 small entity providers of resale telephone service that might
be affected by the actions and rules adopted in the Report and Order.
Again, in every case, these actions and rules either eliminate or
reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on any such small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ TRS Worksheet, at Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications
Revenue Reported by Class of Carrier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. We now discuss non-wireline carriers, including: Wireless
(Radiotelephone) Carriers; Cellular Service Carriers; and Mobile
Service Carriers.
[[Page 5164]]
13. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for Wireless
(Radiotelephone) Carriers. The Census Bureau reports that there were
1,176 such companies in operation for at least one year at the end of
1992.\25\ According to SBA's definition, a small business
radiotelephone company is one employing fewer than 1,500 persons.\26\
The Census Bureau also reported that 1,164 of those radiotelephone
companies had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all of the
remaining 12 companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still
be 1,164 radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities
if they are independently owned and operated. Although it seems certain
that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated,
and, further, that within the set of potential small entities not all
such entities would earn annual revenues in excess of $1 million, we
are unable to estimate with greater precision the number of
radiotelephone carriers and service providers that would both qualify
as small business concerns under SBA's definition and be subject to the
Report's $1 million annual revenue requirement. Consequently, we
estimate that there are fewer than 1,164 small entity radiotelephone
companies that might be affected by the actions and rules adopted in
the Report and Order. Again, in every case, these actions and rules
either eliminate or reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on any such
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
``1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities:
Establishment and Firm Size,'' at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (1992
Census).
\26\ 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC
Code 4812).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of
small entities specifically applicable to Cellular Service Carriers and
to Mobile Service Carriers. The closest applicable definition under SBA
rules for both services is for telephone companies other than
radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of
information regarding the number of Cellular Service Carriers and
Mobile Service Carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be
the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS. According
to our most recent data, 789 companies reported that they are engaged
in the provision of cellular services and 117 companies reported that
they are engaged in the provision of mobile services.\27\ Although it
seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned
and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and, further, that
within the potential set of small entities not all would earn annual
revenues in excess of $1 million, we are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of Cellular Service Carriers
and Mobile Service Carriers that would qualify as small business
concerns under SBA's definition and be subject to the Report's $1
million annual revenue requirement. Consequently, we estimate that
there are fewer than 789 small entity Cellular Service Carriers and
fewer than 117 small entity Mobile Service Carriers that might be
affected by the actions and rules adopted in the Report and Order.
Again, in every case, these actions and rules either eliminate or
reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on any such small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ TRS Worksheet, at Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications
Revenue Reported by Class of Carrier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rules
15. As detailed in the body of the Report and Order, these rules
will significantly reduce the amount of reporting, record keeping, and
compliance requirements which was previously placed on the regulated
entities--including the small entities identified above. In our efforts
to quantify the economic impact of this Report and Order on small
businesses, we refer to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
its analyses of administrative burdens imposed by agency rules and
policies.\28\ OMB has approved Bureau estimates of ``burden hours'' for
the following reports which our analysis has shown to affect small
entities: (11) Circuit Report, (12) Record Carrier Letter, (14) Form
492 Rate of Return Report, and (17) Report of Unsecured Credit to
Political Candidates.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (1995).
\29\ NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. With respect to those four reports affecting small entities
that are eliminated by this Report and Order, the Bureau has prepared
and OMB has approved estimates of the benefits for two of these
reports: (10) Circuit Report and (12) Record Carrier Letter.\30\
According to these Bureau and OMB estimates, the Bureau's action to
eliminate the Circuit Report will result in a savings of 500 hours per
year, in toto, to the nondominant carriers formerly required to file
that report.\31\ For those record carriers formerly required to file
the Record Carrier Report, it is estimated that this Report and Order
will save approximately 20 hours per year, in toto, by eliminating this
report.\32\ While OMB does not maintain estimates for the other two
reports eliminated, (1) NSEP Report and (10) Billing and Collection
Report, it is clear that, as a result of the Bureau's actions, the
small businesses previously subject to these reports will see reduced
expenses for associated accounting, legal, and administrative
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Section D of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(concluding that four reports eliminated by this Report and Order
might potentially affect small entities: (1) NSEP Report, (10)
Billing and Collection Report, (11) Circuit Report, and (12) Record
Carrier Letter).
\31\ NPRM. See OMB No. 3060-0149. The per-hour reduction was
calculated by comparing the OMB hourly estimates provided in the
NPRM (showing the burden on entities after the Report and Order)
with the OMB control number listing (showing the approved burdens
for the respective reporting requirements as existing before this
Report and Order).
\32\ NPRM. See OMB No. 3060-0515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. As set out in Section D of the Report and Order, the Bureau
modified three reports that might potentially affect small entities:
(14) Form 492 Rate of Return Report, (15) Joint Board Monitoring
Program, and (17) Report of Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates.
According to OMB analysis of report (14), the Form 492 Rate of Return
Report, the Bureau's action in this Report and Order will reduce the
total burden on all businesses, both small and otherwise, by 840 hours
per year.\33\ OMB estimates for report (17), Report of Unsecured Credit
to Political Candidates, indicate that as a result of the Bureau's
action in this Report and Order, carriers--small entities and
otherwise--will spend 104 hours less per year, in toto, to comply with
the reporting requirements.\34\ With respect to (15) the Joint Board
Monitoring Program, no OMB estimates are available to calculate the
precise economic benefit to NECA--the only entity subject to this
reporting requirement; however, it is clear that by reducing the
frequency of filing from monthly to quarterly reports, NECA will bear a
relatively smaller burden than it did under the prior schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ NPRM. See OMB No. 3060-0355.
\34\ NPRM. See OMB No. 3060-0147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Steps Taken to Minimize Impact on Small Entities Consistent With
Stated Objectives
18. As discussed in detail in Section E of the Report and Order, to
the extent that if affects small entities, the impact of this Report
and Order is only beneficial. The primary thrust of this Report and
Order is to reduce administrative burdens wherever possible. It does
not impose any new
[[Page 5165]]
requirements. Because this action does not include changes in format
reports or additional reporting requirements, there are no steps
necessary to minimize any impact on small entities. Small entities and
large entities alike should be able to benefit immediately from the
Bureau's actions to eliminate or reduce requirements pursuant to this
Report and Order.
G. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected
19. Again, the action does not impose additional burdens on small
entities and will in fact have a positive impact by reducing
administrative burdens on a wide variety of entities. Nonetheless, we
did consider a number of alternatives to the Report and Order as
issued.
20. Where we merely modified the filing frequency, we received
comments from a number of parties recommending that we instead
eliminate the subject reporting requirements.\35\ We carefully
considered these options in light of our own experience and in light of
reply comments from other parties. As discussed in detail in Part III,
we are persuaded that these reports still serve important interests and
should be retained.\36\ We conclude that this Report and Order achieves
the proper balance between reducing burdens and fulfilling important
monitoring objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Part III of the Report and Order (discussing
alternative proposals submitted by commenters for the Form 492 Rate
of Return Report, at para. 37-38, Joint Board Monitoring Program, at
para. 40-41, New Service Tracking Report, at para. 43-46, Report of
Unsecured Credit to Political Candidates, at para. 48-49).
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Another alternative considered was offered by CompTel, an
association of telecommunications providers including interexchange
carriers. CompTel suggested imposing a new requirement to replace the
Billing and Collections Report. While specifically supporting our
proposed elimination of the Billing and Collections Report, CompTel
argued that copies of all such contracts should be filed with the
Commission. We rejected CompTel's proposal because it would impose
significant administrative burdens on ILECs, both large and small, to
monitor a market which the vast majority of the parties concluded to be
fully competitive.
22. We received several proposals to eliminate or alter reports
which were not addressed in the NPRM. For example, Cincinnati Bell
Telephone, a self-described mid-size local exchange carrier, proposes
that the Commission increase the revenue threshold for filing for
various reports including Cost Allocation Manuals (CAMS).\37\ While we
recognize that such changes might exempt smaller ILECs from some of
these filing requirements, we choose not be follow such suggestions
without giving other parties an opportunity to comment. We believe that
this and other such proposals would be more appropriately considered in
a separate proceeding and are outside the scope of our delegated
authority. To that extent, we reaffirm that this Report and Order is a
reflection of our continuing commitment to minimizing the adverse
impact of the Commission's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Cincinnati Bell Telephone Comments at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Report to Congress
23. The Bureau shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, along with the Report and Order, in a report to
Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also be
published in the Federal Register.
Ordering Clauses
24. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
201-205, 218, 226, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218, 226, 303(r), and
Secs. 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91 and 0.291,
that the Commission's rules and policies are amended as set forth
below, effective March 6, 1997.
25. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91 and 0.291, that the proposal in
Revision of Filing Requirements that Payphone Compensation reports be
filed semiannually is rescinded.
List of Subjects In
47 CFR Part 43
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.
47 CFR Part 63
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.
47 CFR Part 64
Civil defense, Communications common carriers, Credits, Political
candidates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telegraph,
Telephone.
47 CFR Part 65
Communications common carriers, Credits, Political candidates,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Peyton Wynns,
Chief, Industry Analysis Division.
Rule Changes
Parts 43, 63, 64, and 65 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 43--REPORTS OF COMMUNICATIONS COMMON CARRIERS AND CERTAIN
AFFILIATES
1. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154;
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, secs. 402(b)(2)(B),
(c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply
secs. 211, 219, 220, 48 Stat. 1073, 1077, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 211,
219, 220.
2. Paragraph (d) of Sec. 43.21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 43.21 Annual reports of carriers and certain affiliates.
* * * * *
(d) Each miscellaneous common carrier (as defined by Sec. 21.2 of
this chapter) with operating revenues for a calendar year in excess of
the indexed revenue threshold shall file with the Common Carrier Bureau
Chief a letter showing its operating revenues for that year and the
value of its total communications plant at the end of that year. This
letter must be filed by March 31 of the following year.
* * * * *
Sec. 43.41 [Removed and Reserved]
3. Section 43.41 is removed and reserved.
PART 63--EXTENSION OF LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE
AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIER; AND GRANTS OF
RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS
4. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 201-205, 218, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sec. 613 of the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 USC 151, 154(i) 15(j), 201-
205, 218, 403, and 533 unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 63.07 [Amended]
5. Section 63.07 is amended by removing paragraph (b) and
[[Page 5166]]
redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
6. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154,
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, secs. 402(b)(2)(B),
(c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply
secs. 201, 218, 226, 228, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C.
201, 218, 226, 228 unless otherwise noted.
7. Section 64.804 is amended by revising the first sentence of the
introductory text of paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.804 Rules governing the extension of unsecured credit to
candidates or persons on behalf of such candidates for Federal office
for interstate and foreign common carrier communication services.
* * * * *
(g) On or before January 31, 1973, and on corresponding dates of
each year thereafter, each carrier which had operating revenues in the
preceding year in excess of $1 million shall file with the Commission a
report by account of any amount due and unpaid, as of the end of the
month prior to the reporting date, for interstate and foreign
communications services to a candidate or person on behalf of such
candidate when such amount results from the extension of unsecured
credit. * * *
PART 65--INTERSTATE RATE OF RETURN PRESCRIPTION PROCEDURES AND
METHODOLOGIES
8. The authority citation for Part 65 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 403, 48 Stat.,
1066, 1072, 1077, 1094, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 202,
203, 204, 205, 218, 219, 220, 403.
9. Section 65.600 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 65.600 Rate of return reports
* * * * *
(b) Each local exchange carrier or group of affiliated carriers
which is not subject to Secs. 61.41 through 61.49 of this chapter and
which has filed individual access tariffs during the preceding
enforcement period shall file with the Commission within three (3)
months after the end of each calendar year, an annual rate of return
monitoring report which shall be the enforcement period report. Reports
shall be filed on the appropriate report form prescribed by the
Commission (see s 1.795 of this chapter) and shall provide full and
specific answers to all questions propounded and information requested
in the currently effective report form. The number of copies to be
filed shall be specified in the applicable report form. At least one
copy of the report shall be signed on the signature page by the
responsible officer. A copy of each report shall be retained in the
principal office of the respondent and shall be filed in such a manner
as to be readily available for reference and inspection. Final
adjustments to the enforcement period report shall be made by September
30 of the year following the enforcement period to ensure that any
refunds can be properly reflected in an annual access filing.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-2703 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
