[Federal Register: April 19, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 75)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20845-20851]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ap04-30]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 02-386; FCC 04-50]
Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account
Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether it
should impose mandatory minimum Customer Account Record Exchange (CARE)
obligations on all local and interexchange carriers and, in specified
situations, require carriers to transmit certain CARE codes to involved
carriers that are designed to provide specific billing and other
essential customer data. It also asks whether adopting a mandatory
minimum CARE standard for wireline-to-wireless porting would impose a
burden on LECs and/or commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers,
and seeks input on what steps might be taken to ameliorate or minimize
any such burden. The document also seeks comment on proposals for
addressing billing issues in wireline-to-wireless number porting
situations.
DATES: Comments are due June 3, 2004 and reply comments are due June
18, 2004. Written comments by the public on the proposed information
collection(s) are due June 18, 2004. Written comments must be submitted
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed
information collection(s) on or before June 18, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with
the Secretary, a copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments on
the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to
Leslie Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov, and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room
10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20503, or via the
Internet to Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Johns at 202-418-2512, Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau. For additional information concerning the
information collection(s) contained in this document, contact Leslie
Smith at 202-418-0217 or via the Internet at Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record
Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers, CG Docket
No. 02-386, FCC 04-50, contains proposed information collection(s)
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It will be
submitted to the OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited
to comment on the proposed information collection(s) contained in this
proceeding. This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM, adopted March
10, 2004, and released March 25, 2004. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Comments
[[Page 20846]]
filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the
Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one
copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or
rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however,
commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each
docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing
the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name,
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should
send an e-mail to 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 appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Services mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor,
Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper
filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue,
NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service
first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed
to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554. Parties who choose to file by paper
should also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes should
be submitted to: Kelli Farmer, Federal Communications Commission, 445
12th Street, SW., Room 4-C734, Washington, DC 20554. Such submissions
should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format
using Word 97 or compatible software. The diskette should be
accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in ``read only''
mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name,
proceeding (including the lead docket number in this case, CG Docket
No. 02-386, type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of
submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The
label should also include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an
Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings,
preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must
send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex
International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554. Copies of any subsequently filed documents in
this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The
complete text of this NPRM may be purchased from the Commission's
duplication contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. This is a permit-but
disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period,
provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. To
request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities
(braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail
to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0531 (voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM contains proposed information collection(s). The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections contained in
this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13. Public and agency comments on the proposed information
collection(s) are due June 18, 2004. Comments should address: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy
of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might ``further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.'' Only those proposals that might change
an information collection requirement are discussed below.
OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
Title: Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account
Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers CG
Docket No. 02-386 (NPRM), FCC 04-50.
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
Number of Respondents: 3,100.
Estimated Time per Response: 2 minutes--96 hours (multiple
responses annually).
Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping.
Total Annual Burden: 18,104,000 hours.
Total Annual Costs: None.
Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
Needs and Uses: In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on
whether the Commission should impose mandatory minimum Customer Account
Record Exchange (CARE) obligations on all local and interexchange
carriers. Taking into account the variety of methods carriers may use
to exchange the necessary information, we estimate that a requirement
making CARE obligations mandatory may result in an additional burden of
anywhere from two minutes to 96 burden hours per exchange of CARE data.
Synopsis
The CARE system provides a uniform method for the exchange of
certain information by interexchange carriers and LECs. CARE allows
these carriers to exchange the data necessary to establish and maintain
customer accounts, and to execute and confirm customer orders and
customer transfers from one long distance carrier to another. At the
time the existing CARE process was developed, incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (LECs), for the most part, did not compete for long distance
service,
[[Page 20847]]
and local markets were not competitive. However, subsequent to the
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), the
growth of customer migration in the competitive local exchange market
has affected the ability of long distance carriers to bill for long
distance services rendered to those customers.
The CARE process was developed by the telecommunications industry
in response to the break-up of the Bell System and the introduction of
competitive long distance services. To facilitate the equal access and
cooperation among telecommunications providers mandated by the Modified
Final Judgment, the industry created the Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions (``ATIS''), a developer of
telecommunications standards and operational guidelines that has 124
member companies, representing nearly every sector of the
telecommunications industry. The Carrier Liaison Committee of ATIS in
turn created the Ordering and Billing Forum (``OBF''), which
established voluntary industry standards for CARE among carriers, based
on input from all participating segments of the industry. The CARE
standards were developed to facilitate the exchange of customer account
information to allow LECs to comply with their obligation to provide
all interexchange carriers with access that is equal in type, quality,
and price to that provided to AT&T and its affiliates. CARE generically
identifies data elements that might be shared between carriers and
supports a data format intended to facilitate the mechanized exchange
of that information. It aims to provide a consistent definition and
data format for the exchange of common data elements.
Historically, incumbent LECs managed the exchange of customer data
between themselves and the various interexchange carriers that were
competing for the provision of long distance services. When a customer
elected to change long distance carriers, or otherwise changed his or
her billing, name, and address (BNA) information, the incumbent LEC
would provide CARE data to the appropriate interexchange carrier(s) to
ensure seamless provision of service to the customer.
Though most LECs and long distance carriers participated in CARE
prior to 1996, CARE data is not currently exchanged in a uniform manner
now that the number of LECs has increased significantly. As a result,
interexchange carriers may often be unable to identify local carrier
lines in the current competitive marketplace. Interexchange carriers
may therefore be unaware of whether a customer remains on the network,
has switched to another local or long distance carrier, has been
disconnected, or has made changes to BNA information. This can inhibit
customers' ability to move seamlessly from one carrier to another, and
can result in substantial increases in unbillable calls and customer
complaints. These problems may also arise in the context of customers
porting wireline telephone numbers to wireless carriers. In addition,
carriers may be viewed as being responsible for double or continued
billing, cramming, slamming, or violations of the Commission's truth-
in-billing requirements when they do not receive accurate, timely, or
complete information regarding their customers' accounts.
On September 5, 2002, Americatel filed a petition for declaratory
ruling to clarify LEC obligations with regard to the provision of BNA
service. Specifically, Americatel seeks a declaration that: (1) All
local exchange carriers, both competitive and incumbent LECs, are
obligated to provide BNA service, subject to existing safeguards; (2)
all LECs have an obligation to provide the appropriate presubscribed
long distance carrier with the identity of the new serving carrier
whenever one of the LEC's customers changes local service providers;
and (3) any LEC that no longer serves a particular end user customer
has an obligation, upon the request of a long distance carrier, to
indicate which other LEC is now providing service to such end user
customer. Americatel also requests that we require all carriers to
exchange customer billing information under specific parameters
developed by the industry through the OBF. AT&T, Sprint, and MCI (Joint
Petitioners) filed a petition on November 22, 2002, requesting that the
Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require certain
mandatory CARE obligations for all local and interexchange carriers.
Under this proposal, all carriers would be required, in specified
situations, to transmit certain CARE codes to involved carriers that
are designed to provide specific billing and other essential customer
data. Joint Petitioners ask that carriers be given flexibility to
provide for the transmission of required data in a variety of ways,
including paper (facsimile, U.S. and/or overnight mail), e-mail,
cartridge, Internet processing, mechanized processing, or real-time
processing. Joint Petitioners argue that this flexibility will minimize
implementation costs on the industry, particularly on smaller carriers.
In addition, Joint Petitioners propose to provide flexibility for
carriers to use alternate codes for certain transactions, in order to
minimize potential development costs for carriers that are not already
providing all of the CARE codes. Finally, Joint Petitioners propose
that we adopt performance measurements for timeliness, accuracy, and
completeness of CARE data.
Fifteen parties filed comments or replies in response to the two
petitions. While most agree that the concerns raised in the petitions
have some merit, most also contend that the solutions proposed by
petitioners are inappropriate or overly broad. Incumbent LECs generally
argue that they are already providing CARE and BNA data, and that
petitioners have not demonstrated that the existing CARE process is
deficient with respect to incumbent LECs. They assert that the problems
described by petitioners arise due to certain competitive LECs' failure
to participate in CARE and BNA data exchange, or to provide such
information to interexchange carriers in the same manner as the
incumbent LECs. Accordingly, incumbent LECs argue that competitive LECs
should be the sole focus of any proposed rules. Small and rural LECs in
particular express concern that mandatory minimum CARE standards will
impose additional, unnecessary burdens on them.
After reviewing the petitions and the subsequent comments and
replies, we believe that the issues raised in the petitions would be
more appropriately addressed through a notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding than by an immediate ruling on the petitions. Accordingly,
we seek comment on whether mandatory minimum CARE standards could
provide consistency within the industry, and could eliminate a
significant percentage of consumer complaints concerning billing
errors. We focus here primarily on the proposals outlined in the Joint
Petition, and do not address Americatel's petition in full at this
time. In particular, with respect to Americatel's request for
declaratory relief regarding LECs' BNA service obligations, we note
that Sec. 64.1201 makes no distinction between the responsibilities of
independent LECs and competitive LECs, and places the obligations of
notice and access on all LECs.
As a general matter, we believe that a uniform process observed by
all regulated entities--competitive LECs, incumbent LECs, and
interexchange carriers alike--could also provide a better framework for
fair and consistent
[[Page 20848]]
enforcement activity by the Commission. We therefore seek comment on
whether we should impose mandatory minimum CARE obligations on all
local and interexchange carriers. How extensive are the billing
problems described in the petitions? Are they sufficiently pervasive
throughout the industry to warrant regulatory intervention at this
time? To what extent would adoption of the proposed minimum CARE
standards place a burden on LECs and interexchange carriers generally?
The Joint Petitioners have recommended a Minimum CARE Standard composed
of a subset of the existing OBF CARE/Industry Support Interface
guideline Transaction Code Status Indicators (TCSIs).
They state that these recommended TCSIs are essential for an
interexchange carrier to be able to do all of the following:
Submit a Preferred Interexchange Carrier (PIC)
order to the correct LEC on behalf of the end user (01XX TCSIs--0101,
0104, 0105);
Know when any LEC has put an end user on the
interexchange carrier's network (20XX TCSIs--2003, 2004, 2005, 2007,
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2020);
Know when any LEC has removed an end user from
the interexchange carrier's network (22XX TCSIs--2201, 2202, 2203,
2206, 2215, 2216, 2217, 2218, 2219, 2231, 2233, 2234);
Receive critical changes to the account for the
end user currently PIC'd at the local switch to the interexchange
carrier (23XX TCSIs--2317, 2368, 2369);
Facilitate a request for BNA for end users who
have usage on the requesting carrier's network where the interexchange
carrier does not have an existing account for the end user (TCSIs 0501,
2503, 2504);
Know whom the LEC has suspended or blocked from
using the carrier network due to collection or fraud issues to allow
the PIC'd interexchange carrier to take appropriate steps necessary to
maintain customer continuity with the carriers network and/or calling
card process (27XX TCSIs--2710, 2711, 2716, 2717, 2720, 2721); and
Receive a notification of order failure with a
reason specific to the order to allow the interexchange carrier to
correct the order or take alternative steps (all applicable reject
TCSIs--21XX, 31XX, 41XX, 26XX).
We seek comment on whether, if we were to adopt minimum CARE
standards, the Joint Petitioner's proposed standard is appropriate and
adequate to address the concerns raised in the petitions. Are any
modifications to these proposals necessary? Cox notes that, to the
extent any new standards adopted are appropriate and are truly minimal,
they should be applied to all LECs, and should not create any
meaningful burden on incumbent LECs who are already interacting with
interexchange carriers. We seek comment on this view. In addition,
should all LECs, including competitive LECs, be required to notify the
appropriate presubscribed long distance carrier whenever a specific
customer changes local service providers, as Americatel requests?
Should all LECs that no longer serve a particular end user customer be
required, upon the request of a long distance carrier, to indicate
which other carrier is providing local service to that customer? To the
extent commenters suggest modifications or other alternatives to
petitioners' proposals, commenters should specifically outline the
minimum data exchange necessary to address the problems described in
the petitions.
In the Wireless LNP Order, we acknowledged that the billing
problems described by Joint Petitioners may also arise in the context
of wireline-to-wireless number porting. As AT&T explains, where a
stand-alone interexchange carrier customer exercises the right to port
a wireline telephone number to a wireless carrier, there are no
procedures currently in place requiring notification of interexchange
carriers that the customer has selected a wireless carrier to provide
long distance service. As a result, those customers may continue to be
billed by their former interexchange carrier unless and until they
advise that carrier that they are discontinuing their long distance
service. We note that analogous Interexchange Carrier (IXC)
notification issues do not arise in the context of wireless-to-wireline
porting. Because wireless carriers typically provide for long distance
as part of their service to customers, wireless customers do not have a
separate commercial relationship with an IXC and are not separately
billed by the IXC. Accordingly, if a wireless customer ports to a
wireline carrier, there is no need for separate notification to the IXC
that the wireless service is being discontinued.
We seek comment on these wireline-to-wireless number porting
concerns. Have consumers or carriers experienced such problems yet, and
if so, to what extent have they arisen so far? What have those carriers
that have experienced local number porting billing issues done to
address them and prevent them from recurring? The Joint Petitioners
have suggested that a possible solution to this problem would be to
require LECs to notify IXCs when a local exchange number is ported from
a wireline to a wireless carrier. One possibility might be a CARE code
that would add a ``W'' designation for local lines that are ported to
wireless carriers. We seek comment on this and any other proposals for
addressing billing issues in wireline-to-wireless number porting
situations. Would a new CARE code be necessary or appropriate under
these circumstances? What else might be done to prevent the billing
problems that Joint Petitioners contend may arise in this context? If
we were to adopt a mandatory minimum CARE standard for wireline-to-
wireless porting, would that standard impose a burden on LECs and/or
commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers? If so, what steps
could we take to ameliorate or minimize that burden? Would voluntary
standards be adequate? We note that, in the circumstance of a wireline-
to-wireless port, the CMRS provider (unlike the LEC) would not
necessarily know the identity of the customer's presubscribed carrier.
We also seek comment on the expected implementation costs
associated with adopting minimum CARE standards, as well as the
appropriate allocation of those costs. Commenters should also discuss
how, if we adopt minimum CARE standards, we can provide sufficient
flexibility to protect carriers, particularly small and/or rural LECs,
from unduly burdensome requirements. Joint Petitioners claim that their
proposal, which would require carriers to use fewer than five percent
of the total CARE codes developed by ATIS, provides for transmission of
required data in a variety of ways, provides flexibility for carriers
to utilize alternate codes for certain transactions, and minimizes
start-up costs and potential development costs for all carriers that
are not already providing CARE data. Will these steps sufficiently
alleviate the cost concerns raised in the comments on the petitions?
Are there further, or perhaps better, steps we should consider to
minimize the cost and burdens of imposing mandatory CARE standards,
particularly for small and/or rural carriers?
We also seek comment on Joint Petitioners' request that we provide
for ``reasonable'' performance measurements for any minimum CARE
standards that we adopt. Joint Petitioners have identified specific
recommendations for timeliness, accuracy and completeness thresholds.
Specifically, they propose: (1) Timeliness thresholds for the various
[[Page 20849]]
CARE processing methods (real-time, mechanized, e-mail or internet, and
cartridge and paper) that vary from 12 hours to five business days,
depending on the method employed; (2) that all carriers use ``best
efforts'' and ``quality practices and methods'' to ensure that the data
exchange is accurate and complete; and (3) that all carriers use the
guidelines set forth in the ATIS OBF Equal Access Subscription CARE/
Industry Support Interface document to ensure the accuracy and
completeness of CARE data. Are these recommendations appropriate or
necessary? Would other measures provide a more accurate assessment of
carrier compliance with any minimum standards we might adopt?
Americatel agrees that Joint Petitioners' proposals would resolve
many billing-related issues for presubscribed calls, but states that
those proposals do not address additional problems associated with
dial-around traffic, which is subject to greater collection risks and
fraud because the serving carrier does not have any credit information
about the customer. Dial-around service providers, who do not have
established business relationships with their customers, must either
enter into billing and collection agreements with LECs or obtain BNA
data from LECs, in order to bill their end users. Americatel supports
adoption of a line-level database as a comprehensive solution to
current data exchange problems in the industry.
In contrast, Joint Petitioners urge us to address these billing
concerns with a phased approach, first requiring all LECs and
interexchange carriers to participate in mandatory minimum CARE, and
later examining the possibility of creating an industry-wide, line
level database to address billing problems not remedied in the first
phase. Joint Petitioners believe that mandating minimum CARE standards
would alleviate a substantial portion of the billing problems faced by
both pre-subscribed and dial-around service providers.
Although, as Joint Petitioners acknowledge, establishing a national
line-level database might provide a more comprehensive solution to the
billing problems petitioners are experiencing, it appears that
development and implementation of such a solution would not provide
relief for petitioners in the short term. As Americatel itself notes,
the OBF has not been able to reach consensus on a database solution,
despite several years of review, development and analysis. CARE is an
already established, industry-developed solution that has worked
reasonably well in the past, and we believe that establishing uniform,
minimal CARE obligations for all carriers could more readily and
quickly provide at least some relief for petitioners than the database
solution proposed by Americatel. We seek comment on these views.
Several carriers also argue that the industry-wide OBF is the more
appropriate venue for addressing these issues. They note that the
existing CARE process was developed by the industry, and ask the
Commission to carefully consider the status of industry solutions
before adopting rules that may increase burdens on the industry.
According to these commenters, the OBF should be used to address any
changes to the CARE process because it is better suited to considering
the technical and operational aspects of the way information will be
exchanged than a notice and comment rulemaking. Conversely, petitioners
claim that the OBF has been looking into these billing problems for
several years now, but has been unable to reach a resolution. OBF has
been attempting to develop a database solution for the exchange of
customer billing information among multiple carriers in those cases
where the customer has changed one or more of its carriers. The
petitioners assert that they have asked us to address these issues
precisely because OBF has been unable to do so.
We seek comment on this debate. Would federally-mandated minimum
CARE obligations for all carriers restrict the evolution of CARE
standards? Or would mandatory, nationwide standards merely establish
uniformity that is currently lacking in the CARE process and prove
helpful to consumers, carriers, and the Commission?
Finally, we note that the NARUC Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs
has been working to draft model carrier change guidelines that could
help address some of the issues raised by the petitions, in the absence
of uniform minimum CARE requirements. Once finalized, the NARUC model
guidelines could be adopted on a state-by-state basis to address
customer account record concerns, but would be superseded by any
federal rules we might adopt. We seek comment on the NARUC proposals.
Will these model guidelines adequately address petitioners' concerns?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM.
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of
the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, this
NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
The CARE system provides a uniform method for the exchange of
certain information by interexchange carriers and LECs. CARE allows
these carriers to exchange the data necessary to establish and maintain
customer accounts, and to execute and confirm customer orders and
customer transfers from one long distance carrier to another. At the
time the existing CARE process was developed, incumbent LECs, for the
most part, did not compete for long distance service, and local markets
were not competitive. However, subsequent to the passage of the 1996
Act, the growth of customer migration in the competitive local exchange
market has affected the ability of long distance carriers to bill for
long distance services rendered to those customers.
Though most LECs and long distance carriers participated in CARE
prior to 1996, CARE data is not currently exchanged in a uniform manner
now that the number of LECs has increased significantly. This can
inhibit customers' ability to move seamlessly from one carrier to
another, and can result in substantial increases in unbillable calls
and customer complaints. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
seeks comment on whether the Commission should impose mandatory minimum
CARE obligations on all local and interexchange carriers. The NPRM also
seeks comment on whether such billing problems may also arise in the
context of wireline-to-wireless number porting and, if so, what might
be done to prevent such problems that may arise in this context?
Legal Basis
The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this
NPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 206-208 and 258 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 201, 206-208 and 258, and sections 1.421 and 1.429 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.421 and 1.429.
[[Page 20850]]
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under section 3 of the
Small Business Act. Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business
concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
We have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As
noted above, a small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia,
meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a wireline
telecommunications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is
not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy
contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not
``national'' in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs
in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no
effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-
RFA contexts.
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for providers
of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,337
incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in
the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,337 carriers, an
estimated 1,032 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 305 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of providers of local exchange service are small entitles that
may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for providers
of competitive local exchange services. The closest applicable size
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 609
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either
competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange
carrier services. Of these 609 companies, an estimated 458 have 1,500
or fewer employees, and 151 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers
of competitive local exchange service are small entities that may be
affected by the rules.
Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a specific size standard for competitive access providers
(CAPs). The closest applicable standard under the SBA rules is for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's
Telephone Trends Report data, 609 CAPs or competitive local exchange
carriers and 51 other local exchange carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services
or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 609
competitive access providers and competitive local exchange carriers,
an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 151 have more than
1,500 employees. Of the 51 other local exchange carriers, an estimated
50 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of small
entity CAPs and the majority of other local exchange carriers may be
affected by the rules.
Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for
small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers.
Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 133
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local
resale services. Of these 133 companies, an estimated 127 have 1,500 or
fewer employees, and six have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers may be
affected by the rules.
Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for
small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers.
Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data,
625 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of toll
resale services. Of these 625 companies, an estimated 590 have 1,500 or
fewer employees, and 35 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that a majority of toll resellers may be
affected by the rules.
Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically
applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's
Telephone Trends Report data, 261 carriers reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange
services. Of these 261 carriers, an estimated 223 have 1,500 or fewer
employees, and 38 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, we
estimate that a majority of interexchange carriers may be affected by
the rules.
Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically
applicable to operator service providers. The closest applicable size
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 23
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator
services. Of these 23 companies, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer
employees, and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that a majority of local resellers may be affected
by the rules.
Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a size
standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications
Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends
Report data, 37 companies reported that they were engaged in the
provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these 37 companies, an estimated
36 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and one has more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of
prepaid
[[Page 20851]]
calling providers may be affected by the rules.
Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically
applicable to ``Other Toll Carriers.'' This category includes toll
carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange
carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers,
satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable
size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report
data, 92 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of
``Other Toll Services.'' Of these 92 carriers, an estimated 82 have
1,500 or fewer employees, and ten have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of ``Other Toll
Carriers'' may be affected by the rules.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
As noted, we seek comment on whether mandatory minimum CARE
standards could provide consistency in the exchange of customer account
information within the industry, could eliminate a significant
percentage of consumer complaints concerning billing errors, and
whether we should impose mandatory minimum CARE obligations on all
local and interexchange carriers. In the event any new standards are
adopted, we expect that such standards will be minimal and will provide
sufficient flexibility in their application that they will not create
any significant burden on small entities.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
small entities. Mandatory Minimum CARE Requirements. The NPRM seeks
comment on whether the Commission should impose mandatory minimum CARE
obligations on all local and interexchange carriers. We especially seek
information addressing the possible financial impact of such mandatory
requirements on smaller carriers. We also ask commenters to discuss
how, if we were to adopt minimum CARE standards, we could provide
sufficient flexibility to protect carriers, particularly small/rural
LECs and CMRS providers, from unduly burdensome requirements. We do not
have any evidence before us at this time regarding whether the
proposals outlined in this NPRM would, if adopted, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, we
recognize that the RFA requires us to consider that such an impact may
occur. We therefore seek comment on the potential impact of these
proposals on small entities, and whether there are any less burdensome
alternatives that we should consider.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
201, 206-208 and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 206-208 and 258 and sections 1.421 and
1.429 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.421 and 1.429, that the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 02-386 is adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-8481 Filed 4-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P