**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CG Docket No. 02-386         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Rules and Regulations            | ) |                              |
| Implementing Minimum Customer    | * |                              |
| Account Record Exchange          | * |                              |
| Obligations on All Local and     |   |                              |
| Interexchange Carriers           | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

**Adopted: March 10, 2004 Released: March 25, 2004**

By the Commission:

# Introduction

1.  On February 28, 2002, the Commission released a *Notice of Inquiry*
    to develop a baseline record regarding the status and continued
    importance of the equal access and nondiscrimination obligations of
    section 251(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
    Act).[^1] In its comments in the *Equal Access NOI* proceeding, AT&T
    argued that all carriers should be subject to the same mandatory,
    minimum requirements with regards to the accurate and timely
    exchange of customer information.[^2] Specifically, AT&T proposed
    that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to address the
    issue of making the voluntary industry standard process governing
    these exchanges - Customer Account Record Exchange, known as CARE --
    mandatory for all local exchange carriers (LECs) in order to provide
    uniform, timely, and complete CARE data.[^3] In their reply comments
    in that proceeding, Sprint and MCI[^4] both supported AT&T's
    proposal for implementation of a mandatory minimum CARE
    standard.[^5] As described below, two separate petitions were
    subsequently filed with the Commission concerning the exchange of
    customer account data between LECs and interexchange carriers (IXCs)
    in today's competitive market.[^6] On December 20, 2002, the
    Commission issued a Public Notice seeking comment on both the
    Americatel Petition and the Joint Petition.[^7] We are issuing this
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Notice*) to elicit further comment
    on whether the Commission should impose mandatory minimum CARE
    obligations on all local and interexchange carriers.

# BACKGROUND

2.  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.[^8] 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 Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996
    Act),[^9] 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.[^10]

3.  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.[^11] 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.[^12] 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.[^13] 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.[^14]

4.  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,[^15] the incumbent LEC would provide CARE data to the
    appropriate interexchange carrier(s) to ensure seamless provision of
    service to the customer.[^16]

5.  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.[^17]
    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.[^18] These problems may also arise in the context of
    customers porting wireline telephone numbers to wireless
    carriers.[^19] In addition, carriers may be viewed as being
    responsible for double or continued billing, cramming,[^20]
    slamming,[^21] or violations of the Commission's truth-in-billing
    requirements[^22] when they do not receive accurate, timely, or
    complete information regarding their customers' accounts.

6.  On September 5, 2002, Americatel filed a petition for declaratory
    ruling to clarify LEC obligations with regard to the provision of
    BNA service.[^23] 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.[^24] Americatel also
    requests that we require all carriers to exchange customer billing
    information under specific parameters developed by the industry
    through the OBF.[^25]

7.  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.[^26] 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.[^27] 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.[^28] Joint Petitioners argue that this flexibility will
    minimize implementation costs on the industry, particularly on
    smaller carriers.[^29] 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.[^30]
    Finally, Joint Petitioners propose that we adopt performance
    measurements for timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of CARE
    data.[^31]

# Discussion

8.  Fifteen parties filed comments or replies in response to the two
    petitions.[^32] 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.[^33] 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.[^34] Small and rural LECs in particular
    express concern that mandatory minimum CARE standards will impose
    additional, unnecessary burdens on them.[^35]

9.  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.[^36] We focus here primarily on the proposals
    outlined in the Joint Petition, and do not address Americatel's
    petition in full at this time.[^37] In particular, with respect to
    Americatel's request for declaratory relief regarding LECs' BNA
    service obligations, we note that § 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.[^38]

10. 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 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?[^39] To what extent
    would adoption of the proposed minimum CARE standards place a burden
    on LECs and interexchange carriers generally?

11. 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).[^40]
    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);[^41]

-   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);[^42]

-   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);[^43]

-   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);[^44]

-   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);[^45]

-   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);[^46] 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).[^47]

12. 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.[^48] 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?[^49] 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?[^50] 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.

13. 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.[^51] As AT&T
    explains, where a standalone 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.[^52] 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.[^53] We note that analogous 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.

14. 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.[^54] 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.

15. 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.[^55] 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?

16. 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.[^56] Specifically, they propose: (1) timeliness
    thresholds for the various 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;[^57] (2) that all carriers use "best efforts" and "quality
    practices and methods" to ensure that the data exchange is accurate
    and complete;[^58] 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.[^59] Are these recommendations appropriate or
    necessary? Would other measures provide a more accurate assessment
    of carrier compliance with any minimum standards we might adopt?

17. 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.[^60] 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.[^61]

18. 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.[^62] 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.[^63]

19. 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.[^64] 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.[^65] 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.

20. Several carriers also argue that the industry-wide OBF is the more
    appropriate venue for addressing these issues.[^66] 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.[^67] 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.[^68] 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.[^69] The
    petitioners assert that they have asked us to address these issues
    precisely because OBF has been unable to do so.

21. 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?

22. 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.[^70] 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?

# CONCLUSION

23. As noted above, the aim of the CARE standards is to provide a
    consistent definition and data format for the exchange of common
    data elements. Failure to utilize consistent formats can create
    confusion for carriers, customers, and the Commission. These
    concerns are especially important given the increase in the number
    of local exchange carriers (and resultant escalation of customer
    migration) since the passage of the 1996 Act, as well as the
    evolution of number porting with respect to wireline to wireless
    carriers. As a general matter, based on our own experiences with
    customer complaints, we believe that uniformity amongst CLECs,
    ILECs, and IXCs could enhance our efforts to provide fair,
    consistent and efficient enforcement of our rules.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

24. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended
    (RFA),[^71] the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic
    impact on small entities of the proposals set forth in this
    *Notice*. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public
    comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in
    accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this
    NPRM, and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them
    as responses to the IRFA.

## Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

25. This *Notice* contains proposed and/or modified information
    collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
    These proposed and/or modified information collection(s) will be
    submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
    under Section 3507 of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other
    Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information
    collection(s) contained in this proceeding.

## Ex Parte Presentations

26. This is a permit-but disclose notice and comment rulemaking
    proceeding. Members of the public are advised that *ex parte*
    presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda
    period, provided they are disclosed under the Commission's
    rules.[^72]

## Filing of Comments and Reply Comments

27. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth above.
    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or
    before 45 days after publication in the Federal Register, and reply
    comments on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal
    Register. 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 Fed.
    Reg. 24121 (1998).

28. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>.
    Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
    If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of
    this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic
    copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced
    in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
    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 for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail
    to ecfs@fcc.gov, 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 appear 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 Service 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, N.E., Suite
    110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are
    8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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, D.C. 20554. All
    filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of
    the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Parties also
    should send four (4) paper copies of their filings to: Kelli Farmer,
    Federal Communications Commission, Room 4-C740, 445 12th Street,
    S.W., Washington, DC 20554.

29. Written comments by the public on the proposed or modified
    information collections are due on or before 45 days after the date
    of publication in the Federal Register. Written comments must be
    submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the
    proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 60
    days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition
    to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
    information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to:
    Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th
    Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to
    <judy.boley@fcc.gov>; and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room
    10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or via
    the Internet to <edward.springer@omb.eop.gov>.

30. Accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording
    and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
    contacting Brian Millin of the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
    Bureau, at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at
    <brian.millin@fcc.gov>.

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# ORDERING CLAUSES

31. 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 C.F.R. §§ 1.421 and
    1.429, that the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in CG Docket No.
    02-386 IS ADOPTED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

    **APPENDIX A**

    **Comments**

Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

Americatel Corp.

BellSouth Corp.

Creative Support Solutions

Cox Communications, Inc.

Intrado Inc.

National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.

Oklahoma Rural Telephone Companies

SBC Communications Inc.

Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers

Verizon

**Replies**

Americatel Corp.

AT&T Corp., Sprint Corporation, MCI.

Cox Communications, Inc.

Oklahoma Rural Telephone Companies

PBT Telecom, Inc.

United States Telecom Association

**APPENDIX B**

# Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^73] 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 *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 *Notice* and the IRFA (or
    summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

32. 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.

33. 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*
    (*Notice*) seeks comment on whether the Commission should impose
    mandatory minimum CARE obligations on all local and interexchange
    carriers. The *Notice* 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 

34. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this
    *Notice* 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 C.F.R. §§ 1.421 and 1.429.

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

35. 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.[^74] The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
    governmental jurisdiction."[^75] In addition, the term "small
    business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
    under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^76] 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).[^77]

36. 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."[^78] 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.[^79] 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.

37. *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.[^80] 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.[^81] Of these 1,337 carriers, an estimated 1,032
    have 1,500 or fewer employees and 305 have more than 1,500
    employees.[^82] 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.

38. *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. [^83] 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.[^84] Of these 609 companies, an estimated 458 have 1,500
    or fewer employees, and 151 have more than 1,500 employees.[^85]
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
    providers of competitive local exchange service are small entities
    that may be affected by the rules.

39. *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. [^86]
    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.[^87] 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.[^88] Of the
    51 other local exchange carriers, an estimated 50 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.[^89]
    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.

40. *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.[^90] According to the FCC's *Telephone
    Trends Report* data, 133 companies reported that they were engaged
    in the provision of local resale services.[^91] Of these 133
    companies, an estimated 127 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and six
    have more than 1,500 employees.[^92] Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that the majority of local resellers may be affected by
    the rules.

41. *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.[^93] According to the FCC's *Telephone
    Trends Report* data, 625 companies reported that they were engaged
    in the provision of toll resale services.[^94] Of these 625
    companies, an estimated 590 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 35
    have more than 1,500 employees**.**[^95] Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that a majority of toll resellers may be
    affected by the rules.

42. *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. [^96] According to the
    FCC's *Telephone Trends Report* data, 261 carriers reported that
    their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision
    of interexchange services.[^97] Of these 261 carriers, an estimated
    223 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 38 have more than 1,500
    employees.[^98] Consequently, we estimate that a majority of
    interexchange carriers may be affected by the rules.

43. *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.[^99] According to the FCC's *Telephone
    Trends Report* data, 23 companies reported that they were engaged in
    the provision of operator services.[^100] Of these 23 companies, an
    estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and one has more than
    1,500 employees.[^101] Consequently, the Commission estimates that a
    majority of local resellers may be affected by the rules.

44. *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.[^102]
    According to the FCC's *Telephone Trends Report* data, 37 companies
    reported that they were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling
    cards.[^103] Of these 37 companies, an estimated 36 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees, and one has more than 1,500 employees.[^104]
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of prepaid
    calling providers may be affected by the rules.

45. *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. [^105] According to the
    FCC's *Telephone Trends Report* data, 92 carriers reported that they
    were engaged in the provision of "Other Toll Services."[^106] Of
    these 92 carriers, an estimated 82 have 1,500 or fewer employees,
    and ten have more than 1,500 employees.[^107] 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

46. 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

47. 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.[^108]

48. *Mandatory Minimum CARE Requirements*. The *Notice* 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 *Notice* 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

49. None.

[^1]: *Review of the Equal Access and Nondiscrimination Obligations
    Applicable to Local Exchange Carriers*, Notice of Inquiry, CC Docket
    No. 02-39, 17 FCC Rcd 4015 (2002) (*Equal Access NOI*). That
    statutory provision preserves the equal access and nondiscrimination
    requirements that were established for local exchange carriers
    "under any court order, consent decree, or regulation, order, or
    policy of the Commission" prior to passage of the 1996 Act. 47
    U.S.C. 251(g). Section 251(g) imports the obligations of the
    Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ), the consent decree that
    settled the Department of Justice's antitrust suit against AT&T and
    required divestiture of the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs), as well
    as Commission equal access requirements. *U.S. v. AT&T Co*., 552 F.
    Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), *aff'd sub nom., Maryland v. U.S.*, 460
    U.S. 1001 (1983).

[^2]: *See* Comments of AT&T Corp. in the *Equal Access NOI* proceeding,
    at 39-43 (filed May 10, 2002) (AT&T *Equal Access NOI* Comments).

[^3]: *Id.*

[^4]: We note that WorldCom, Inc. recently changed its corporate name to
    MCI, and we will generally refer to the company by its current
    corporate name.

[^5]: *See* Reply Comments of Sprint Corporation in the *Equal Access
    NOI* proceeding, at 3-4 (filed June 10, 2002); Reply Comments of
    WorldCom, Inc. in the *Equal Access NOI* proceeding, at 2-3 (filed
    June 10, 2002).

[^6]: Obligations of All Local Exchange Carriers to Provide Timely and
    Accurate Billing Name and Address Service to Interexchange
    Carriers*,* filed by Americatel Corporation on September 5, 2002
    (Americatel Petition); Petition for Rulemaking to Implement
    Mandatory Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on
    All Local and Interexchange Carriers, filed by AT&T Corp., Sprint
    Corporation, and WorldCom, Inc. on November 22, 2002 (Joint
    Petition).

[^7]: *Public Notice*, Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on
    Petition for Declaratory Ruling and/or Rulemaking, filed by
    Americatel Corporation, and for Comments on Joint Petition for
    Rulemaking to Implement Mandatory Minimum Customer Account Record
    Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers, filed
    by AT&T Corp., Sprint Corporation, and WorldCom, Inc., CG Docket No.
    02-386, 17 FCC Rcd 25535 (2002).

[^8]: Joint Petition at 2.

[^9]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104‑104, 110 Stat. 56
    (1996).

[^10]: Americatel Petition at 4, 6; Joint Petition at 3, 5.

[^11]: *U.S. v. AT&T Co*., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), *aff'd sub
    nom., Maryland v. U.S.*, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983).

[^12]: Joint Petition at 2 and n.2.

[^13]: *Id*.

[^14]: AT&T *Equal Access NOI* Comments at 40 n.28.

[^15]: BNA is defined as "the name and address provided to a local
    exchange company by each of its local exchange customers to which
    the local exchange company directs bills for its services." *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 64.1201(a)(1).

[^16]: Joint Petition at 2-3.

[^17]: Americatel Petition at 4-6; Joint Petition at 3-5.

[^18]: *Id*.

[^19]: *See Telephone Number Portability, CTIA Petitions for Declaratory
    Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues*, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 23697, 23706, n.64 (2003) (*Wireless LNP
    Order*); Letter from Robert M. Quinn, Jr., VP-Federal Government
    Affairs, AT&T, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, CG Docket No. 02-386, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 1 (filed
    Nov. 10, 2003) (AT&T Nov. 10 *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^20]: "Cramming" refers to the practice of causing unauthorized,
    misleading, or deceptive charges to be placed on consumers'
    telephone bills.

[^21]: "Slamming" is the submission and execution by a
    telecommunications carrier of an unauthorized change in a
    subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service
    or telephone toll service. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2400 and 64.2401.

[^23]: Americatel Petition at 3-4. In the alternative, Americatel
    requested that the Commission initiate a rulemaking on these issues.
    *Id.* at 4, n.4.

[^24]: *See* Americatel Petition at 3-4.

[^25]: *See* Americatel Reply at 5-6.

[^26]: Joint Petition at 1.

[^27]: *Id*. at 7.

[^28]: *See* Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 3 ("Cost Considerations")
    and 4-8 ("Processing Considerations").

[^29]: Joint Petition at 8.

[^30]: Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 9-17.

[^31]: Joint Petition at 8-10 and Appendix A, at 4-8.

[^32]: *See* Appendix A (list of commenters).

[^33]: BellSouth Comments at 2; SBC Comments at 1-2; SILEC Comments at
    1-2.

[^34]: Verizon Comments at 5.

[^35]: NECA Comments at 3; Oklahoma RTC Comments at 6; PBT Reply at 1-2;
    SILEC Comments at 3-5.

[^36]: Joint Petitioners estimate that mandatory CARE standards could
    eliminate as much as 60% of consumer billing complaints. *See* Joint
    Petition at 5.

[^37]: In particular, we do not tackle Americatel's requests for
    declaratory relief and its proposal to establish a national database
    of carrier ownership information related to each telephone line.
    *See* ¶ 15, *infra*.

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1201.

[^39]: For example, Americatel states that its unbillable calls for 2001
    were equal to 6% of its long distance revenues, and were worth more
    than \$6.4 million in 2002; Americatel further contends that other
    dial-around carriers are also experiencing large volumes of
    unbillable calls. *See* Letter from Robert H. Jackson, counsel for
    Americatel, to Margaret Egler, Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental
    Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, CG Docket No.
    02-386, at 3 (filed May 15, 2003) (Americatel May 15 *Ex Parte*).

[^40]: *See* Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 2.

[^41]: *See* Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 2, 9.

[^42]: *See* Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 2, 10-12.

[^43]: *See* Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 2, 12-14.

[^44]: *See* Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 2, 15.

[^45]: *See* Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 2, 9-10, 15.

[^46]: *See* Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 2, 16-17.

[^47]: *See* Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 2, 12.

[^48]: Cox Reply at 2.

[^49]: Americatel Petition at 12-13.

[^50]: *Id*. at 13.

[^51]: *Wireless LNP Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23706, n. 64.

[^52]: AT&T Nov. 10 *Ex Parte* Letter, at 1. AT&T notes that, because
    wireless carriers do not have equal access obligations, the long
    distance provider for a local line newly ported to a wireless
    carrier will almost always become the wireless provider itself,
    thereby replacing the interexchange carrier. *Id.*

[^53]: *Id*.

[^54]: Letter from Michael F. Del Casino, Government Affairs Director,
    AT&T, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, CG Docket No. 02-386, at 1 (filed Dec. 5, 2003) (Dec. 5
    *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^55]: Joint Petition at 7-8; *see also* Joint Petition, Appendix A, at
    3.

[^56]: Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 5-8.

[^57]: Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 5.

[^58]: *Id.*

[^59]: *Id.*

[^60]: Americatel Comments at 2-3.

[^61]: Americatel's proposed line-level database would be a national
    database containing information on a telephone number level related
    to the carrier ownership of that line, and would identify the LEC
    that serves a specific line when that LEC is obtaining its local
    switching from an underlying incumbent LEC. This situation occurs
    whenever the serving LEC is reselling the incumbent LEC's local
    service or purchasing switching from the incumbent LEC as a UNE.
    *See* Letter from Robert H. Jackson, counsel for Americatel, to
    Margaret Egler, Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, CG Docket No. 02-386, at
    2-4 (filed July 15, 2003) (Americatel July 15 *Ex Parte* Letter);
    Americatel Reply at 5; *see also* Intrado Comments at 4-7.

[^62]: *See* Letter from Michael B. Fingerhut, Sprint; Martha Lewis
    Marcus, AT&T; and Karen Reidy, WorldCom, to Margaret Egler, Deputy
    Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, CG Docket No. 02-386, at 2 (filed June
    19, 2003) (Joint Petitioners June 19 *Ex Parte*).

[^63]: *Id*.

[^64]: Joint Petitioners June 19 *Ex Parte* at 2.

[^65]: Americatel Petition at 7; Americatel Reply at 5.

[^66]: *See, e.g.,* Allegiance Comments at 4-5; BellSouth Comments at
    3-4; NECA Comments at 4.

[^67]: *Id*.

[^68]: *See* <http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/obf/LSOP/multi_migration.htm>
    for details on the efforts of the OBF's Local Services Ordering &
    Provisioning Committee Multi-Provider Migration Task Force to
    address these issues.

[^69]: The OBF website states: "With the advent of local competition,
    challenges associated with seamlessly migrating an end user to a new
    service provider is at the forefront of several state Public Utility
    Commission agendas. Designing an industry-wide standard for
    migrating end users has become critical to ensure companies have one
    process that benefits all companies - developed with minimal
    regulatory intervention." *See*
    <http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/obf/obfhom.htm> for further
    information about the OBF's work in this area.

[^70]: *See, e.g*., e-mail from Lynn Crofton, AT&T, to Margaret Egler,
    Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, CG Docket No. 02-386, outlining Joint
    Petitioners' input to the draft guidelines prepared by the NARUC
    Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs (sent July 25, 2003). *See also
    Resolution Urging The FCC to Initiate a Rulemaking To Establish
    Mandatory Minimum Requirements Relative to the Exchange of Customer
    Account Information between Inter-Exchange Carriers, LECs and
    CLECs,*
    <http://www.naruc.org/associations/1773/files/requirements.pdf>.

[^71]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been
    amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
    1966 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^72]: *See generally*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.

[^73]: 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 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^74]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^75]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^76]: 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."

[^77]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^78]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^79]: *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 C.F.R. §
    121.102(b).

[^80]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^81]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, *Trends in Telephone Service*, at Table 5.3, p.
    5 - 5 (August 2003) (*Telephone Trends Report*).

[^82]: *Id*.

[^83]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^84]: *Telephone Trends Report*, Table 5.3.

[^85]: *Id*.

[^86]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^87]: *Telephone Trends Report*, Table 5.3.

[^88]: *Id*.

[^89]: *Id*.

[^90]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^91]: *Telephone Trends Report*, Table 5.3.

[^92]: *Id*.

[^93]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^94]: *Telephone Trends Report*, Table 5.3.

[^95]: *Id*.

[^96]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^97]: *Telephone Trends Report*, Table 5.3.

[^98]: *Id*.

[^99]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^100]: *Telephone Trends Report*, Table 5.3.

[^101]: *Id*.

[^102]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^103]: *Telephone Trends Report*, Table 5.3.

[^104]: *Id*.

[^105]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^106]: *Telephone Trends Report*, Table 5.3.

[^107]: *Id*.

[^108]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).