48042 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules

sections 154(i), 303(g), 303(r), and

332(c)(7), a notice of proposed

rulemaking is hereby adopted.

55. It is further ordered That the

petition for rulemaking of the Cellular

Telecommunications Industry

Association, filed December 22, 1994

(RM–8577), is hereby Dismissed.

vi. Further Information

56. For further information

concerning the NPRM, contact Shaun A.

Maher, Esq. at (202) 418–7240, internet:

smaher@fcc.gov, Policy & Rules Branch,

Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–24166 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 54 and 69

[CC Docket No. 97–181; FCC 97–316]

Defining Primary Lines

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: As a result of reforms adopted

to implement the Telecommunications

Act of 1996, our access charge rules

require incumbent LECs subject to the

Commission’s price cap rules to charge

subscriber line charges (SLCs) and

presubscribed interexchange carrier

charges (PICCs) at different levels for

secondary residential and multi-line

business lines. This NPRM considers

how Commission should define and

identify primary lines for the purposes

of implementing the Commission’s

access charge rules.

DATES: Pursuant to applicable

procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may

file comments on or before September

25, 1997, and reply comments on or

before October 9, 1997. Written

comments by the public on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections are due September 25, 1997.

Written comments must be submitted by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) on the proposed and/or modified

information collections on or before

November 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Parties should send their

comments or reply comments to Office

of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington,

D.C. 20554. Parties filing on paper

should also send three (3) copies of their

comments to Sheryl Todd, Federal

Communications Commission,

Accounting and Audits Division,

Universal Service Branch, 2100 M

Street, N.W., Room 8611, Washington,

DC 20554. Parties filing in paper form

should also file one copy of any

documents filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20036. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for further

information about filing comments and

reply comments electronically.

In addition to filing comments with

the Secretary, a copy of any comments

on the information collections

contained herein should be submitted to

Judy Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie Yates, Legal Counsel, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–1500, or

Sheryl Todd, Common Carrier Bureau,

(202) 418–7400. For additional

information concerning the information

collections contained in this NPRM

contact Judy Boley at 202–418–0214, or

via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

1. This NPRM contains either a

proposed or modified information

collection. The Commission, as part of

its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, invites the general

public and the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the

information collections contained in

this NPRM, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as

other comments on this NPRM; OMB

notification of action is due 60 days

from date of publication of this NPRM

in the Federal Register. Comments

should address: (a) Whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

OMB Approval Number: None, new

information collection.

Title: In the Matter of Federal-State

Joint Board on Universal Service,

Defining Primary Lines, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No.

97–181.

Form No.: None.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Frequency of Response: On occasion;

one-time requirement.

Proposed collection No. of respondents

Est. time per

response

Total annual

burden

Est. costs per

respondent

(a.) Request by ILEC to consumer .................................................................. 164 100 16,400 1,6400.00

(b.) Response by consumer to identify primary line ........................................ 149,141,075 1.083 12,378,709 0.00

(c.) Disclosure statement .................................................................................. 164 100 16,400 0.00

(d.) Recordkeeping ........................................................................................... 164 50 8,200 286,040.00

1 5 min.

Total Annual Burden: 12,419,709

hours.

Needs and Uses: The information

collections proposed in this NPRM are

necessary to fully implement the rules

the Commission adopted in its

Universal Service Order and Access

Charge Reform Order because, without

a definition and a means of identifying

and verifying primary residential lines,

incumbent LECs subject to Commission

price cap regulation will not be able to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 48043

assess the appropriate charges for these

lines. Requiring incumbent LECs to

assess different-level charges on primary

residential lines is necessary to balance

between reforming our access charge

rules to facilitate local competition, and

preserving and advancing universal

service by taking action to maintain low

rates for subscribers to local telephone

service.

Summary of Analysis, Tentative

Conclusions, and Issues for Comment

I. Introduction

2. In the Universal Service Order and

the Access Charge Reform Order we

concluded that the $3.50 cap on the

subscriber line charge (SLC) for primary

residential and single-line businesses

should remain unchanged. See FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service,

(62 FR 32862 (June 17, 1997))

(hereinafter Universal Service Order);

Access Charge Reform, (62 FR 31868,

(June 11, 1997)) (hereinafter Access

Charge Reform Order); see also FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service,

(61 FR 63778 (December 2, 1996))

(hereinafter Recommended Decision). In

the Access Charge Reform Order,

however, we adjusted the SLC caps for

additional residential and business

lines. We also created a presubscribed

interexchange carrier charge (PICC) that

will, over time, supplant the trafficsensitive carrier common line charge

(CCLC). Under our new access charge

rules, in 1998 SLC and PICC levels for

primary residential and single-line

business lines will be lower than the

levels prescribed for secondary

residential and multi-line business

lines. As a result of these changes, we

must establish criteria to identify

primary residential lines for the purpose

of determining SLC and PICC levels.

II. Discussion

3. Although this NPRM focuses on

price cap ILECs, we also solicit

comment on whether the various

proposals set forth in this NPRM for

defining, identifying, and verifying

primary lines for price cap ILECs could

also be applied for rate-of-return ILECs

if, in a future proceeding, the

Commission concludes that all ILECs

should assess SLCs and PICCs that are

higher for secondary lines.

A. Defining Single-Line Business Lines

and Primary Residential Lines

4. We invite parties to describe the

methods carriers use to distinguish

multiple-line businesses from singleline businesses and to distinguish

between residential and business

customers, and seek comment on

whether the Commission should revise

its rules or policies to ensure the correct

SLCs and PICCs are assessed on these

lines. In particular, we note, that

§ 69.104(h) defines a single-line

business line. It states: ‘‘A line shall be

deemed to be a single line business line

if the subscriber pays a rate that is not

described as a residential rate in the

local exchange service tariff and does

not obtain more than one such line from

a particular telephone company.’’ 47

CFR 69.104(h). In the Access Charge

Reform Order, we defined the term

‘‘telephone company’’ for the purposes

of part 69 of our rules, to mean an

‘‘incumbent LEC’’ as that term is

defined in section 251(h)(1) of the Act.

47 CFR 69.2 We seek comment on

whether we should alter this definition.

We seek comment on whether

maintaining this definition would be

favorable because, given that only price

cap ILECs will assess different SLCs and

PICCs on multi-line businesses,

maintaining this definition would allow

incumbent LECs to assess the correct

SLCs and PICCs without determining

whether a customer receives service

from other carriers. We note however,

that if we maintain this definition, a

business that obtains one line from an

ILEC and one line from a competitive

LEC or a wireless carrier would be

treated as a single-line business for the

purposes of its SLC and PICC. We seek

comment on whether this outcome

would be competitively neutral and

whether it would be consistent with the

Joint Board’s recommendations with

respect to the level of the primary line

SLC. We further seek comment on

whether a business with a single line in

each of two locations should be

considered a single-line business.

5. Primary residential line. We seek

comment on how we should define

‘‘primary residential line.’’ Specifically,

we seek comment on whether the

primary residential line should be

defined as the primary line of an

individual subscriber, of a residence, of

an individual household, or on another

basis. For example, defining the primary

line as the primary line to a primary

residence would not allow two

households in a single residence each to

subscribe to a line that is subject to the

primary-line level SLC and PICC (i.e.,

one of the two lines would be subject to

the higher SLC and PICC). Conversely,

defining the primary line in terms of a

subscriber’s residence may have the

advantage of being administratively

simple and less invasive of subscribers’

privacy because it does not require the

gathering of information regarding

subscriber living arrangements that

would be needed to identify

households. We seek comment on these

issues.

6. Parties that favor defining the

primary residential line in terms of

‘‘subscribers,’’ ‘‘residences,’’

‘‘households,’’ or any other term, should

propose definitions of such terms,

including definitions used by other

entities. We seek comment on whether

we should use, for example, the

definition of household used by either

the U.S. Census Bureau, see U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, Census of Population and

Housing, 1990, Technical

Documentation (May 1992) at B–14, or

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), see

26 CFR 1.2–2(b)(3) or (4); 26 U.S.C. 26

U.S.C. 151. We ask parties to identify

other definitions that may be easily

applied by consumers and carriers alike.

Additionally, we ask parties to estimate,

to the extent possible, the number of

lines that will be classified as primary

residential lines under any definition

that they support. Parties should also

discuss how the definition of the

primary residential line selected would

affect the success of the approach,

discussed below, they favor to verify the

number of such lines.

B. Identification of Primary Residential

Lines

7. Information Required To Identify

Primary Residential Lines. We

tentatively conclude that, although an

ILEC’s business records likely

distinguish between single-line and

multi-line customers, and between

residential and business customers,

those records may be inadequate to

identify the primary residential line. For

these reasons, we tentatively conclude

that identifying a primary residential

line requires: (1) Identification of the

subscriber, residence, or household

(depending on the definition adopted);

(2) identification of the primary

residence of the subscriber or

household; and (3) identification of the

primary line, and of the incumbent LEC

and interexchange carrier serving that

line. We seek comment on these

tentative conclusions.

8. Using Customer Self-Certification

To Collect Information. We tentatively

conclude that the Commission should

permit price cap ILECs to use customer

self-certification to identify primary

lines for access charge purposes. We

make this tentative conclusion because

such an approach presumably would

minimize the substantial administrative

costs that would be inherent in any

effort to require carriers or the

Commission to identify primary

residential lines without information
48044 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules

from the customer. The burden that selfcertification will impose on individual

customers would be significantly less

than the burden that ILECs would

otherwise bear to identify each of their

customers’ primary line independent of

the customer.

9. We seek comment on the language

that would have to be posed to

subscribers to determine which is their

primary residential line under such a

self-certification proposal. We seek

comment on whether we should adopt

uniform language, or whether carriers

should devise their own method of

acquiring this information. We seek

comment on whether LECs should be

required to inform customers of the

consequences of providing false

information or designating more than

one line as a primary line. We seek

comment on how often this information

should be collected. We tentatively

conclude that this information should

be collected once from all customers

currently being served by price cap

ILECs, and thereafter only at the time a

customer orders service from a price cap

ILEC. We seek comment on procedures

that could be used to identify when

customers switch service to a competing

carrier. We also tentatively conclude

that price cap ILECs should be required

to maintain documentation of their

customers’ self-certification that is

adequate to permit verification of the

number of primary lines an ILEC

reportedly serves. We seek comment on

whether documentation could be

accomplished by permitting customers

to provide oral certification that is noted

in the price cap ILEC’s records or

whether customers should be required

to self-certify in writing. We also seek

comment on how long these ILECs

should be required to maintain

documentation of customer selfcertification. In addition, we seek

comment on what action the price cap

ILEC should take if a customer fails to

provide a self-certification. We seek

comment on any other administrative

procedures parties recommend to

implement a self-certification method of

identifying primary residential lines,

and are particularly interested in

proposals that will reduce the

administrative burden on carriers and

customers.

10. Resellers. We seek comment on

how to identify secondary lines for

resellers that resell wholesale exchange

service purchased from price cap ILECs.

We seek comment on whether the

Commission should require resellers to

identify the primary and secondary

lines of their customers and relay that

information to price cap ILECs, or,

whether price cap ILECs should identify

the primary and secondary lines for

resellers’ customers directly. We seek

comment on whether, if, for example, a

reseller collected customer

certifications, the reseller should pass

along the original copies of its

customers’ certifications to the price cap

ILEC from which it is purchasing

wholesale service. We invite alternative

proposals, and encourage parties to

suggest proposals that will accurately

identify the secondary lines served by

resellers and will be administratively

simple to implement.

11. Although databases maintained by

price cap ILECs could be useful to those

ILECs for retaining customer records, we

tentatively conclude that we will not

use a national database, maintained by

the Commission or another entity on a

nation-wide basis, to track primary

residential lines or single-line

businesses for two reasons. First, such a

database is not necessary to implement

our access charge rules. Second, the

administrative resources necessary to

create such a database might outweigh

any additional accuracy gained from

this approach.

12. Other Proposals. We tentatively

conclude that we will not pursue

several other approaches presented by

commenters in the Universal Service

proceeding. We tentatively conclude

that we will not adopt Teleport’s

proposal to use county and municipal

records and databases to identify

addresses of individuals. We also

tentatively conclude, for the reasons

articulated by MFS and to protect the

privacy of consumers, that social

security numbers should not be used to

track primary residential lines.

13. Privacy Issues. We encourage

parties to comment on any potential

issues related to subscriber privacy that

may be raised by the customer selfcertification proposal discussed above.

Specifically, we seek comment on

whether requiring consumers to provide

information to their price cap ILECs

regarding the identification of their

households and primary residences

would be consistent with those

consumers’ reasonable expectations of

privacy and whether the Privacy Act

would apply to the collection of selfcertifications by ILECs. We tentatively

conclude that we should require ILECs

that collect this information to use this

information only for the purposes of

determining the correct SLC and PICC

for individual consumers’ lines, and not

disclose it or permit access to it for any

other purposes. We request comment on

whether primary line information

would constitute customer proprietary

network information as defined in

section 222(f)(1) of the Act. 47 U.S.C.

222(f)(1). We seek comment on whether

sections 222 (c)(1), (d)(1), (d)(2), other

parts of section 222, or other sections of

the Act present exceptions that would

allow carriers to disclose primary line

information to the Commission, or

another entity selected by the

Commission, without customer

approval.

C. Verifying Primary Residential Line

Information

14. We tentatively conclude the

Commission should implement a

method to verify the number of primary

lines served by a carrier, identified

through customer self-certification. In

light of the potential incentives for

carriers to misreport the number of lines

to which the end users subscribe, we

tentatively conclude that we should

adopt a method of verifying the number

of primary lines served by price cap

ILECs.

15. Audits. Although the Commission

has broad authority to audit

telecommunications carriers’ records, 47

U.S.C. 220(c), we seek comment on

whether audits would be an effective

way to examine discrepancies in the

number of primary lines a carrier serves

and the number of primary-line SLCs

and PICCs the carrier charges. Such

audits would utilize appropriate

auditing techniques and procedures to

verify the number of primary-line SLCs

and PICCs assessed by price cap ILECs.

We tentatively conclude that audits of

the ILEC’s records could be performed

to determine whether the ILEC

misreported primary lines. We seek

comment on our tentative conclusion to

use audits to verify primary lines and on

the type of audit that would be most

effective and efficient. We also seek

comment on what controls or

procedures should be implemented that

would protect against the possibility of

a price cap ILEC misreporting primary

lines.

16. Models. In the context of

formulating a forward-looking economic

cost mechanism to estimate the cost of

providing service in high cost areas, the

proponents of the Hatfield model have

developed a method for estimating the

number of primary lines in a census

block. We seek comment on whether

this method, or another modeling

approach, could assist the Commission

in verifying the number of primary lines

served by price cap ILECs. Specifically,

we seek comment on whether the

Commission could use the estimates

generated by the Hatfield model in

conjunction with an audit. We also seek

comment on whether the Hatfield

approach would have to be modified to

account for second homes. In addition,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 48045

we note that the Commission recently

collected data on, inter alia, the number

of loops served by carriers and the

number of residential customers that

subscribe to more than one line. We

seek comment on whether these data

would assist in verifying primary line

counts.

D. Enforcement

17. We seek comment on available

methods for the Commission to enforce

its access charge rules, which impose

different maximum SLCs and PICCs

depending on whether a line is a

primary or secondary line. We seek

comment on whether the Commission’s

authority under sections 4(i), 206–209,

312, 403, and 503 of the

Communications Act of 1934, and the

provisions of Title 18 of the United

States Code, 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), is

sufficient to deter fraud or

misrepresentation by carriers or

consumers that may arise under the

customer self-certification approach. We

tentatively conclude that we should

require carriers to notify their customers

of the requirement to identify a single

primary local exchange carrier and a

single primary residence. We request

comment on this tentative conclusion.

We also seek comment on whether we

should adopt measures to deter

consumers from identifying more than

one primary line.

18. We also seek comment on what

types of sanctions would be appropriate

and consistent with the Commission’s

statutory authority to punish violations

of our rules regarding the identification

of primary lines and request comment

on whether section 222(c)(1) or any

other portion of section 222 provides

adequate authority to prevent misuse of

the information that carriers collect. We

tentatively conclude that, if the

Commission, as a result of an audit or

other method of verifying primary line

counts, discovered that a price cap ILEC

had misreported the number of primary

lines it serves, the Commission could

take the following actions: (1) Order the

price cap ILEC to correct its billing

practices and assess SLCs and PICCs at

the correct level; (2) impose forfeitures

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 220(d) or 503(b)

for violations of the Commission’s rules;

and (3) require the price cap ILEC to

have an independent auditor conduct

audits of its records at regular intervals

determined by the Commission. We

seek comment on these tentative

conclusions.

E. Consumer Disclosure

19. We seek comment on whether the

Commission should require carriers to

provide consumers with a uniform

disclosure statement describing this

distinction. We tentatively conclude

that such a disclosure requirement

would be consistent with applicable

First Amendment standards and invite

comment on that conclusion. We seek

comment on whether, for example, all

local exchange carriers that charge a

SLC should be required to make the

following statement:

The subscriber line charge is a fee collected

by your local telephone company to defray

part of the costs of providing telephone

service. The subscriber line charge covers the

costs that can be attributed to providing

customers with the ability to place telephone

calls across state lines. In order to ensure that

all customers have affordable access to local

telephone service, the Federal

Communications Commission allows your

local telephone company to charge no more

than $3.50 for the subscriber line charge for

each primary residential line. For additional

lines, the Federal Communications

Commission allows local telephone

companies to charge no more than $5.00 per

line for the subscriber line charge in 1998.

We seek comment on whether this

statement will be easily understood by

all consumers. We invite alternate

suggestions for a uniform consumer

disclosure statement. We seek comment

on whether this statement should be

given orally at the time when a

subscriber orders telephone service. We

seek comment on whether this

statement should be provided in writing

to all consumers when the change takes

effect. We seek comment on how, if we

adopt a consumer disclosure statement

including a reference to the SLC cap on

secondary lines, such disclosure

statement should indicate the annual

increases in the SLC cap. We seek

comment on whether such a statement

would be compatible with marketing

and consumer information campaigns

that carriers may have instituted or that

they may be formulating in preparation

for the Commission’s new access charge

rules.

Deadlines and Instructions for Filing

Comments

20. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and

1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before September 25,

1997, and reply comments on or before

October 9, 1997.

21. We direct all interested parties to

include the name of the filing party and

the date of the filing on each page of

their comments and reply comments.

Comments and reply comments also

must clearly identify the specific

portion of this NPRM to which a

particular comment or set of comments

is responsive. If a portion of a party’s

comments does not fall under a

particular topic listed in the outline of

this NPRM, such comments must be

included in a clearly labelled section at

the beginning or end of the filing.

Irrespective of the length of their

comments or reply comments, parties

shall include a table of contents in their

documents. Cf. 47 CFR 1.49(b).

22. Parties should send their

comments or reply comments to Office

of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington,

D.C. 20554. Parties filing on paper

should also send three (3) copies of their

comments to Sheryl Todd, Federal

Communications Commission,

Accounting and Audits Division,

Universal Service Branch, 2100 M

Street, N.W., Room 8611, Washington,

DC 20554. Parties filing in paper form

should also file one copy of any

documents filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20036. Comments and reply

comments will be available for public

inspection during regular business

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919

M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington,

D.C. 20554.

23. Commenters may also file

informal comments or an exact copy of

formal comments electronically via the

Internet at: <http://gullfoss.fcc.gov/cgibin/websql/cgi-bin/comment/

comment.hts>. Only one copy of

electronically filed comments must be

submitted. A commenter must note

whether an electronic submission is an

exact copy of formal comments on the

subject line. A commenter also must

include its full name and Postal Service

mailing address its submission.

24. Parties not submitting an exact

copy of their comments via the Internet

are also asked to submit their comments

and reply comments on diskette. Such

diskette submissions are in addition to

and not a substitute for the formal filing

requirements addressed above. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit

them to Sheryl Todd of the Common

Carrier Bureau, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Room 8611, Washington, D.C. 20554.

Such a submission should be on a 3.5

inch diskette formatted in an IBM

compatible form using WordPerfect 5.1

for Windows or compatible software.

The diskette should be submitted in

‘‘read only’’ mode. The diskette should

be clearly labelled with the party’s

name, proceeding, type of pleading

(comment or reply comments) and date

of submission. Each diskette should

contain only one party’s comments in a

single electronic file. The diskette
48046 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules

should be accompanied by a cover

letter.

25. Written comments by the public

on the proposed information collections

are due September 25, 1997. Written

comments must be submitted by OMB

on the proposed information collection

on or before 60 days after the date of

publication in the Federal Register. In

addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via

the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

26. Pursuant to the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared this Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the

expected significant economic impact of

these proposed policies and rules on

small entities. Written public comments

are requested on the IRFA. These

comments must be filed in accordance

with the same filing deadlines as

comments on the rest of this NPRM, and

should have a separate and distinct

heading designating them as responses

to the IRFA. The Commission will send

a copy of this NPRM, including the

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration

(SBA) in accordance with the RFA. See

5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq., has been amended by the

Contract With America Advancement

Act of 1996, Public Law 104–121, 110

Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the

CWAAA is the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA).

27. Need for and Objectives of the

Proposed Rules. Three principal goals of

the Telecommunications Act of 1996

are: (1) Opening local exchange and

exchange access markets to competition;

(2) promoting increased competition in

telecommunications markets that are

already open to competition,

particularly long distance services

markets; and (3) reforming our system of

universal service so that universal

service is preserved and advanced as

local exchange and exchange access

markets move from monopoly to

competition. The Commission’s access

charge and universal service rules were

adopted at a time when interstate access

and local exchange services were

offered on a monopoly basis, and in

many cases are inconsistent with the

competitive market envisioned by the

1996 Act. This NPRM is necessary to

implement the rules the Commission

adopted in its Universal Service Order

and Access Charge Reform Order

because, without a definition and a

means of identifying and verifying

primary residential lines, price cap

ILECs will not be able to assess the

appropriate charges for these lines. With

this NPRM, we seek to identify primary

residential lines in order to make the

Commission’s access charge and

universal service rules consistent with

Sections 251 and 254 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996.

28. Legal Basis. The proposed action

is supported by Sections 4(i), 4(j), 201–

205, 251, 254, and 403 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201–

205, 251, 254, and 403.

29. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities That May Be

Affected by This NPRM. The RFA

directs the Commission to provide a

description of, and where feasible, and

estimate of the number of small entities

that might be affected by proposed

rules. The RFA defines the term ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the term ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small business

concern’’ under section 3 of the Small

Business Act (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 601(3)

(incorporating by reference the

definition of ‘‘small business concern’’

in 15 U.S.C. 632). The Commission may

also develop additional definitions that

are appropriate to its activities. To be a

small business concern, an entity must:

(1) Be independently owned and

operated; (2) be not dominant in its field

of operation; and (3) meet any

additional criteria established by the

SBA. See 15 U.S.C. 632.

30. We believe that small ILECs are

not small businesses for IRFA purposes

because each is either dominant in its

field of operation or is not

independently owned and operated. We

have found ILECs to be ‘‘dominant in

their field of operation’’ since the early

1980s, and we consistently have

certified under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that

ILECs are not subject to regulatory

flexibility analysis requirements

because they are not ‘‘small business

concerns.’’ Out of an abundance of

caution, for regulatory flexibility

analysis purposes we will consider

small ILECs within this present analysis

and use the term ‘‘small ILECs’’ to refer

to any incumbent LEC that arguably

might be defined by SBA as a small

business concern.

31. The proposals under

consideration in this NPRM, if adopted,

would affect the fourteen (14) ILECs

subject to price cap regulation by the

Commission. Neither the Commission

nor the SBA has developed a definition

of small providers of local exchange

service. The closest applicable

definition under SBA rules is for

telephone telecommunications

companies other than radiotelephone

(wireless) companies. The SBA has

defined a small business for Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) category

4813 (Telephone Communications,

Except Radiotelephone) to be an entity

with no more than 1,500 employees, 15

U.S.C. 632 (citing 13 CFR 121.201). Of

the fourteen ILECs subject to price cap

regulation, we estimate that, at a

maximum, six (6) of them have no more

than 1,500 employees. Of these six, we

estimate that at least one is not

independently owned and operated. We

seek comment on these estimates.

32. In addition, the proposals in this

NPRM may also affect providers of local

exchange service that purchase

wholesale services from the 14

incumbent price cap LECs and resell

that service to customers. Neither the

Commission nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small entities specifically

applicable to resellers. The closest

applicable SBA definition for a reseller

is a telephone communications

company except radiotelephone

(wireless) companies. 13 CFR 121.201,

SIC 4813. However, the most reliable

source of information regarding the

number of resellers nationwide is the

data that the Commission collects

annually in connection with the TRS

Worksheet. According to our most

recent data, 260 companies reported

that they were engaged in the resale of

telephone service. We estimate that

between 50 and 150 of these companies

offer local exchange service on a resale

basis, but we do not have data regarding

how many of these carriers purchase

service from price cap ILECs. We also

do not have information on the number

of these carriers that are not

independently owned and operated or

have more than 1,500 employees, and

thus we are unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the

number of resellers that would qualify

as small entities or small incumbent

LEC concerns under the SBA’s

definition. Consequently, we estimate

that there are fewer than 150 small

entity resellers.

33. Reporting, record keeping, and

other compliance requirements. The

proposals to establish a customer

certification system amy require price

cap ILECs to ask customers to identify

their primary lines, maintain records

verifying a customer’s primary line
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 48047

designation, submit their records to

Commission audits to verify accuracy of

primary line counts, and publish a

consumer disclosure statement in their

monthly bills.

34. Steps Taken to Minimize

Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities and Alternatives Considered.

Throughout this NPRM, we seek

comment on alternatives that will

reduce the impact on all entities

affected by these proposals, including

small ILECs. We tentatively adopt a

definition of single-line business lines

that, we believe, will result in a smaller

administrative burden for ILECs as they

identify primary and secondary lines in

order to charge the correct SLC or PICC.

In addition, we ask commenters to

identify the relative costs and benefits,

including administrative costs, of

adopting a particular definition of

primary residential line. We ask parties

to identify a definition of primary

residential line that will be easy for

carriers and customers to apply. We

tentatively adopt customer selfcertification as a means to identify

primary lines because this method of

identification is less administratively

burdensome for ILECs than a method

that does not include customer input.

We seek comment on whether, and if so,

the amount of time, ILECs must keep

records of customer self-certification.

We particularly encourage parties to

submit proposals that will reduce the

administrative burden on carriers and

customers. We seek comment on

whether we should include a

standardized customer disclosure

statement, and if so, whether that

disclosure should be made in writing or

may be made orally.

35. At this time, we tentatively

conclude to eliminate several options

because they would be too

administratively burdensome. The

proposals we tentatively reject include:

creating and maintaining a national

database of primary line designations;

using local property records to identify

and track primary lines; and using

social security numbers to track primary

lines.

36. Federal rules which overlap,

duplicate or conflict with this rule.

None.

Ordering Clauses

37. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections

1, 4 (i) and (j), 201–209, 218–222, 251,

254, and 403 of the Communications

Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),

154(j), 201–209, 218–222, 251, 254, and

403 that this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is hereby adopted and

comments are requested as described

above.

38. It is further ordered that the

Commission shall send a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 54

Communications common carriers,

Health facilities, Libraries, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Schools, Telecommunications,

Telephone.

47 CFR Part 69

Communications common carriers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–24211 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 970828210–7210–01; I.D.

080697H]

RIN 0648–AK37

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and

Butterfish Fisheries; Control Date for

Atlantic Mackerel

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; notice of control date for

the Atlantic mackerel fishery.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that anyone

entering the commercial Atlantic

mackerel fishery after September 12,

1997 (control date) will not be assured

of future access to the Atlantic mackerel

resource in Federal waters if a

management regime is developed and

implemented under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens

Act) that limits the number of

participants in the fishery. This

announcement is intended to promote

awareness of potential eligibility criteria

for future access to the commercial

Atlantic mackerel fishery and to

discourage new entries into this fishery

based on economic speculation, while

the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council (Council) contemplates whether

and how access to that portion of the

Atlantic mackerel fishery in Federal

waters should be controlled. The

potential eligibility criteria may be

based on historical participation,

defined as any number of trips having

any documented amount of Atlantic

mackerel landings. If such a regime is

implemented, fishery participants may

need to preserve records that

substantiate and verify their

participation in the Atlantic mackerel

fishery in Federal waters.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by

October 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to David R. Keifer, Executive

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, 300 South New

Street, Dover, DE 19904.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst,

508–281–9104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Atlantic mackerel (Scomber

scombrus) is a migratory species that

supports important recreational and

commercial fisheries along the Atlantic

coast of the United States and Canada.

The Fishery Management Plan for

Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish

(FMP) was developed by the Council to

provide for the development of the U.S.

Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish

fisheries. An initial notice establishing a

control date of August 13, 1992, was

issued for the Atlantic mackerel, squid,

and butterfish fisheries (57 FR 36384,

August 13, 1992), which stated that as

of that date no vessel would be

guaranteed entry into a limited access

fishery, if the Council chose to

implement one. This control date was

rescinded for Atlantic mackerel on

September 27, 1994 (59 FR 49235),

because the Council and NMFS believed

that information regarding biomass

levels, fishing levels, fishing effort, and

catch indicated that the mackerel

fishery would not require limited-entry

management in the foreseeable future.

Removal of the control date also

removed a barrier to access to this

underutilized resource to vessel owners

who were facing severe restrictions in

other Northeast fisheries. In

Amendment 5 to the FMP, the Council

included a provision that would require

the Secretary of Commerce to publish a

control date for the Atlantic mackerel

fishery when commercial landings

reached 50 percent of allowable

biological catch (ABC). NMFS did not