[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 64 (Monday, April 5, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16353-16358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7787]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 69
[CC Docket No. 97-181; FCC 99-28]
Defining Primary Lines
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission adopts a location-based
definition of ``primary residential line.'' Under this definition, one
residential line that a price cap local exchange carrier (LEC) provides
to a particular location will be considered primary. Any other
residential lines the price cap LEC provides to the same location shall
be deemed non-primary residential lines. The Commission maintains the
existing definition of ``single line business line.'' These definitions
will facilitate implementation of the Commission's access charge rules,
which set higher caps for the subscriber line charges (SLCs) and
presubscribed interexchange carrier charges (PICCs) that price cap LECs
may assess on non-primary residential lines and multi-line business
lines than on primary residential lines and single line business lines.
Adopting requirements for differentiating and identifying such lines
will promote uniformity in the way price cap LECs assess SLCs and
PICCs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The entire file is available for inspection and copying
weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Commission's Reference
Center, 445 Twelfth Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Copies may be
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, ITS Inc., 1231
Twentieth St., NW, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Fried, Common Carrier Bureau,
(202) 418-1520; TTY: (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
1. To provide interstate telecommunications services, interexchange
carriers (IXCs) usually rely on some of the telephone infrastructure
that incumbent LECs use to provide local telephone service. The
incumbent LEC's local loop, for example, connects a customer to the LEC
network so that the customer can make and receive intrastate calls. The
incumbent LEC's local loop also connects the customer to the networks
of IXCs so that the customer can make and receive interstate calls.
Consequently, a portion of the costs an incumbent LEC incurs in
providing this common infrastructure is allocated to intrastate service
and recovered pursuant to state regulation, and a portion is allocated
to interstate service and recovered pursuant to regulations of the
Federal Communications Commission.
2. The Commission adopted uniform access charge rules in 1983 to
govern the way incumbent LECs recover that portion of the costs of the
common infrastructure allocated to interstate service. Under these
rules, the Commission allows incumbent LECs to recover some of the
interstate costs of providing the local loop through a flat, monthly
end-user common line charge (EUCL)--sometimes called a SLC--that they
assess on end users. The Commission limited the amount of the SLC,
however, because of concerns that an excessively high SLC might cause
end users to disconnect their telephone service. The Commission allowed
the incumbent LECs to recover the
[[Page 16354]]
remainder of their interstate costs attributable to the local loop
through a per-minute carrier common line charge (CCLC) that they assess
on IXCs.
3. Under principles of cost-causation, it is most economically
efficient for incumbent LECs to recover the costs of providing
interstate access in the same way that they incur them. Under such
principles, incumbent LECs should recover their traffic-sensitive costs
of interstate access through per-minute charges, and should recover
their non-traffic-sensitive costs through flat charges. The incumbent
LECs' costs of providing the local loop do not change with the number,
length, or type of telephone calls customers make, and so are non-
traffic sensitive. Because of the cap on SLCs, however, incumbent LECs
recover some of these non-traffic-sensitive loop costs through the
traffic sensitive CCLC. In its May 1997 Access Charge Reform Order, the
Commission decided to phase out the CCLC for price cap LECs on the
grounds that recovering the non-traffic-sensitive loop costs through
traffic-sensitive charges is economically inefficient.
4. To provide price cap LECs with a means to recover some of the
loop costs they previously recovered in the CCLC, the Commission raised
the price cap LECs' SLC caps for non-primary residential lines and
multi-line business lines, but chose not to raise the price cap LECs'
SLC caps for primary residential lines and single line business lines.
For 1999, the SLC cap for price cap LECs is $3.50 per month for each
primary residential and single line business line, $6.07 per month for
each non-primary residential line, and $9.20 per month for each multi-
line business line. To address concerns that charging a higher SLC for
non-primary residential lines sold by price cap LECs might encourage
subscribers to obtain their additional residential lines from
resellers, the Commission decided in the Access Charge Reform Order to
allow price cap LECs to charge the higher SLC to carriers that resell
price-cap LECs' lines if the lines are non-primary.
5. Because the SLC caps on residential and single line business
lines would prevent most price cap LECs from recovering through the SLC
all the costs they formerly recovered through the CCLC, the Commission
also created the PICC: a flat, per-line charge that price cap LECs may
assess on an end user's presubscribed IXC. As with the SLC, the
Commission set higher PICC caps for non-primary residential lines and
multi-line business lines than for primary residential lines and single
line business lines. Through June 30, 1999, the PICC cap is $0.53 per
month for each primary residential and single line business line, $1.50
per month for each non-primary residential line, and $2.75 per month
for each multi-line business line. As a result of the various caps, the
lines of customers that subscribe to single residential or business
lines are not assessed the entire cost of the loops. Until the access
reform rate structure is fully phased in, these lines are subsidized by
customers that subscribe to multiple business lines.
6. The Commission sought comment in a September 1997 notice of
proposed rulemaking (Notice) on whether to modify its rules to provide
for the definition, identification, and verification of primary
residential lines and single line business lines. 62 FR 48042,
September 12, 1997; 12 FCC Rcd 13647. Choosing appropriately balanced
definitions is important because as primary residential and single line
business line counts increase, so, too, does the subsidy that multi-
line business line customers must bear during the phase-in of the
access reform rate structure.
B. Definition of Primary Residential Line
1. Background
7. The Commission's rules currently do not define ``primary
residential line.'' The Commission sought comment in the Notice on
whether to define the primary residential line as the primary line of a
residence, of a household, of a subscriber, or on some other basis.
Under a residence definition, only one line per service location--such
as a house or an apartment--would receive primary line status. Under a
household definition, each family unit would receive one primary line,
so that if multiple families live in one house, each family would
receive one line at rates with the lower caps. Under a subscriber
definition, one line would be given primary-line status for each
account opened with the carrier.
8. In the meantime, each price cap LEC devised its own definition
for the purpose of its 1998 access tariff filings. The Commission
concluded in its investigation of those tariff filings that, pending
completion of this rulemaking proceeding, defining as a primary line
either one line per residence or one line per billing-name account per
residence was ``not unreasonable'' for purposes of the tariff filings.
The Commission also found that reasonable definitions of primary and
non-primary residential lines should, at a minimum, ``categorize a
second residential line as non-primary if the line is billed to the
same name at the same location.''
9. In the Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded that price
cap LEC records might be inadequate to identify primary residential
lines, particularly if the Commission adopted a household-based
definition. Based on the presumption that identifying primary
residential lines without information from the customer would be more
administratively burdensome, the Commission tentatively concluded to
permit price cap LECs to use end-user self-certification to identify
primary lines.
2. Discussion
10. Some commenters have supported each of the definitions of
primary residential line that the Commission identified in the Notice:
household-based, account-based, and location-based. None of these
definitions is flawless. An account-based definition, for example,
would permit a subscriber to have multiple primary lines by ordering
each line under a different account name. A location-based definition
does not permit subscribers who share the same address, such as
housemates, each to have his or her own primary line. A household-based
definition would present carriers, consumers, and the Commission with
the ambiguous and administratively burdensome task of determining which
subscribers are part of which households. We have balanced the
advantages and disadvantages of each option. We conclude that a
location-based definition is the least intrusive and most
administratively feasible definition that fulfills the Access Charge
Reform Order's objectives for setting higher SLC and PICC caps for non-
primary residential lines and multi-line business lines.
11. Thus, we will consider one residential line provided by a price
cap LEC per service location to be a primary residential line. For
example, only one line per house, per apartment, or per college dorm
room will receive primary-line rates. We begin by noting along with a
number of commenters that LECs can implement this definition based on
their service records. As the Commission stated in the Notice, a
location-based definition is ``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.'' Consequently, this definition
obviates the need for the self-certification procedure that the
Commission outlined in the Notice, a
[[Page 16355]]
procedure that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) argues would
be ineffective and burdensome. A customer's service location is also
straightforward to determine and not something the customer can easily
alter or misreport to obtain the primary-line rate. This definition
will require carriers to cross-check records within a service location
to ensure that only one subscriber line per residence receives the
primary-line rates, but sorting records by service location should be
relatively easy. Furthermore, many price cap LECs are already moving
toward a location-based definition in their tariffs.
12. The Commission's rules that establish PICCs and set different
SLC caps for primary residential lines than for non-primary residential
lines apply only to price cap LECs, not to rate-of-return LECs.
Consequently, the definition of primary residential line shall apply
only to price cap LECs. The Commission has sought comment on whether to
apply to rate-of-return LECs the rules regarding PICCs and the higher
caps for non-primary residential lines, but has not issued an order
resolving that issue. Should the Commission decide at a later date to
apply such rules to rate-of-return LECs, the Commission will address at
that time how to define, identify, and verify primary residential lines
and single line business lines for rate-of-return LECs. Thus the
Commission does not address issues that the Notice raised regarding
rate-of-return LECs.
13. A number of commenters oppose the location-based definition
because it allows only one primary line per multi-subscriber residence.
If, for example, two roommates each subscribe to a line, only one line
will be billed at the primary-line rate. Generally, however, only a
single residential connection is necessary to permit all residents at a
particular service location complete access to telecommunications and
information services, including access to emergency services.
14. If a subscriber has both a primary and secondary home, this
definition would also treat one line in each home as primary. We note
that this definition departs from current practice in the business
context, under which a business with one line in each of multiple
locations in the same telephone company area receives multi-line
business rates on each line. We find it unnecessary to extend this
policy to the residential context. As many comments point out, the
burden of investigating whether a particular residential subscriber has
lines in multiple residences outweighs any benefit from collecting the
higher non-primary line rates, especially as the number of subscribers
with multiple residences, and thus the number of lines that would be
reclassified from primary to non-primary, is likely only a small
percentage of all residential lines. Furthermore, in many instances
different incumbent LECs will serve the primary and secondary
residences. This further complicates the task of determining which
subscribers have multiple residences, and raises the difficult question
of which line would be deemed the primary line, assuming the subscriber
could have only one primary line throughout all his or her residences.
We also note that the number of residential subscribers is larger than
the number of business subscribers.
15. We will look at all lines provided by a particular price cap
LEC, whether sold by the price cap LEC or a reseller, when determining
the status of the lines to a residence. We do so to address concerns
that charging higher rates for non-primary residential lines sold by
price cap LECs might encourage subscribers to obtain their additional
lines from resellers for no reason other than to avoid the higher SLC.
Consequently, we do not accept the invitation of some commenters to
qualify our definition further by treating as primary one line per
location per service provider. Doing so would create an artificial
incentive for subscribers to spread their lines out among price cap
LECs and multiple resellers merely to avoid the higher SLCs and PICCs
associated with non-primary residential lines.
16. We do not seek to discourage subscribers from ordering services
from multiple providers, but also do not want to create an artificial
incentive for them to do so. Thus, when a price cap LEC has already
sold a line to a residence, the price cap LEC may assess the higher
rates on any additional resold lines. If, however, a resold price cap
LEC line is the primary line, as is the case when all the lines to the
residence are purchased from one or more resellers, the resold line
will remain the primary line should a price cap LEC subsequently sell
an additional line to that residence. If the price cap LEC line and
resold line are sold simultaneously, the price cap LEC line shall be
the primary line. When lines are sold to a location by both a price cap
LEC and at least one reseller of price cap LEC lines, one of the lines
must be identified as primary, but which one will have little impact on
the end user: whichever line is deemed primary, the sum of the SLC and
PICC charges to the consumer will be the same. Because the price cap
LEC is physically providing both lines, we think it reasonable that it
get the primary line designation in the rare circumstance that both
lines are sold simultaneously.
17. Lines sold by wireless carriers and competitive LECs that do
not resell price cap LEC lines shall not be considered in determining
residential line status. Such carriers are not rate regulated by the
Commission and are not subject to the Commission's rules regarding SLCs
and PICCs. Nor do price cap LECs collect SLCs or PICCs on those
carriers' lines. This approach is equitable as between price cap LECs,
resellers, competitive LECs, and wireless carriers because it does not
provide any artificial advantage in marketing second lines.
Furthermore, a price cap LEC would have difficulty determining whether
its customers are also receiving lines from non-reselling competitive
LECs or wireless carriers.
18. We will not adopt a household-based definition of primary
residential line. Although such a definition would allow multiple
primary lines in multi-household residences (e.g., one for each family
in a multi-family dwelling), it would also require gathering invasive
information concerning living arrangements through a self-certification
mechanism that would be administratively burdensome given the large
universe of customers. The ambiguity of a household-based definition
may also result in inconsistent application across subscribers, or
encourage subscribers simply to declare themselves part of different
households to receive the lower primary-line rates.
19. Nor will we treat one line per subscriber account as primary.
Such a definition would allow multiple subscribers at a single location
to receive the lower primary-line rates on each line (e.g., roommates
with individual accounts). Some commenters view this as an advantage to
the definition. Any such advantage, however, is offset by the ability
of a subscriber to game such a definition by obtaining multiple lines
under different account names. Some carriers even allow customers to
obtain separate accounts under the same name. Furthermore, universal
service objectives are met so long as residents at a single location
have access to one line at that location at the subsidized primary-line
rates; allowing more than one such line per location excessively shifts
costs onto other subscribers. We agree with commenters that an account-
based definition is unambiguous and compatible with most carriers'
existing service records, but so too is a location-
[[Page 16356]]
based definition. An account-based definition would eliminate the need
to check whether multiple subscribers are receiving lines at the same
location, but the definition's other shortcomings outweigh this
benefit. In any event, as noted above, sorting records by service
location should not be difficult.
20. We also do not adopt the suggestion of some commenters that we
eliminate the primary/non-primary line distinction, perhaps by applying
an averaged rate to all lines or replacing the PICC with a cost-based
SLC. The Commission has, in the past, specifically decided not to raise
the SLC caps on primary residential lines, in accordance with the
recommendations of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service.
A narrow proceeding such as this is not the appropriate forum for
considering a SLC increase.
C. Definition of Single Line Business Line
1. Background
21. The Commission's rules for price cap LECs state that ``[a] line
shall be deemed to be a single line business subscriber 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 69.152(i). The
Commission defines ``telephone company'' for the purposes of the Part
69 Rules as ``an incumbent local exchange carrier.'' See 47 CFR
69.2(hh). The Commission sought comment in the Notice on whether to
retain the definition of ``single line business line,'' and whether to
consider as a single line business a business with a single line in
each of multiple locations.
2. Discussion
22. We shall retain the existing definition of single line business
line. This definition allows incumbent LECs to assess the correct SLCs
and PICCs on business lines without determining whether a customer
receives service from other carriers.
23. This definition treats as a single line business any business
that obtains one line from a price cap LEC and other lines from a
wireless carrier or a competitive LEC that does not resell the price
cap LEC's lines. As in the context of residential lines, we do not
include lines provided by wireless carriers and competitive LECs that
do not resell price cap LEC lines because such carriers are not subject
to the Commission's SLC and PICC requirements, and because price-cap
LECs do not collect SLCs or PICCs on those carriers' lines.
24. We clarify that if a business receives lines from a price cap
LEC and a competitive LEC that is reselling the price cap LEC's lines,
all those lines shall be considered multi-line business lines.
Clarifying that all the lines provided by a price cap LEC become multi-
line business lines once a customer purchases a second line provided by
that price cap LEC (whether sold by the price cap LEC or a reseller of
the price cap LEC's lines) prevents businesses from avoiding the higher
multi-line business charges by spreading out their lines among one
price cap LEC and multiple resellers of the price cap LEC's lines.
25. Under existing practice, a business with one line in each of
multiple locations within a ``telephone company area'' is treated as a
multi-line business. We will continue that practice. Thus when a
business subscriber's account reflects a single line in each of two
locations within a particular telephone company area, the subscriber
will be treated as a multi-line business. Consequently, we shall
maintain the existing definition of single line business line, thereby
preserving the status quo both for price cap LECs and rate-of-return
LECs.
D. Identification of Primary Residential and Single Line Business
Lines
1. Background
26. As discussed, the Commission tentatively concluded in the
Notice to permit price cap LECs to use end-user self-certification to
identify primary lines. The Commission also sought comment on whether
to require resellers to relay primary- and non-primary-line data to
price cap LECs, or whether price cap LECs should identify the primary
and non-primary lines of resellers' customers directly. Thus, if
resellers collected self-certifications, the Commission asked whether
resellers should be required to provide those certifications to price
cap LECs so that the price cap LECs could assess on the resellers the
appropriate SLCs. The Commission tentatively concluded that it would
not use databases, county and municipal records, or social security
numbers to identify primary lines because such proposals are
administratively burdensome and raise privacy concerns.
2. Discussion
27. The definitions of primary residential line and single line
business line will enable price cap LECs to use their service records
to identify the status of their lines. This approach alleviates the
concerns that carrier records would be insufficient to identify line-
status, as those concerns were directed primarily at a household-based
definition of primary residential line. Carriers will have the
necessary information in their existing service records; thus, allowing
carriers to use their records is the least burdensome option for
carriers, consumers, and the Commission, and minimizes privacy
concerns. Carrier records are also relatively easy to verify and
reasonably immune from gaming or misreporting by customers, willful or
otherwise.
28. Consequently, we need not address various administrative and
privacy issues related to the self-certification method discussed in
the Notice. Price cap carriers are, of course, still subject to
tariffing requirements, and the Commission can always examine carriers'
line counts in a tariff investigation. We note, also, that carriers are
governed by statutory and regulatory restraints regarding the treatment
of customer information to the extent that they apply to data regarding
line status.
29. We will require each price cap LEC to identify the status of
the lines it provides to resellers. We are not persuaded by commenters'
arguments that requiring price cap LECs to determine the status of
other carriers' lines will raise administrative and confidentiality
concerns. Most of these comments focused on the difficulties of
identifying lines provided by facilities-based competitive LECs, not
resellers of price cap LECs' lines, or presumed a self-certification
procedure. We believe that the price cap LECs are in a better position
going forward than the resellers to know all their lines going to a
particular residence, as their service records indicate both the lines
the price cap LECs bill and the lines they provide on behalf of
resellers. Thus, we will not require resellers to identify their
primary and non-primary lines to price cap LECs. The issues the
Commission raised in the Notice regarding the exchange of information
between price cap LECs and resellers are largely mooted by our decision
to adopt a location-based definition of primary line and to allow
carriers to use service records rather than self-certification to
identify line status. Because of that decision, as well as our
clarification of the single line business line definition, price cap
LECs will have the information necessary to administer the definitions,
eliminating the need to share data with, or collect data from, other
carriers.
[[Page 16357]]
E. Customer Notification
30. Because the distinction between primary and non-primary
residential lines may cause customer confusion, the Commission sought
comment in the Notice on whether to require carriers to provide
consumers with a uniform disclosure statement describing the
distinction. The Commission tentatively concluded that such a
disclosure requirement would be consistent with applicable First
Amendment standards, and sought comment on that conclusion. The
Commission also sought comment on how, if it adopts a consumer
disclosure statement that refers to the SLC cap on non-primary lines,
such disclosure statement should indicate any future increases in the
SLC cap. The Commission sought comment on whether such a statement
would be compatible with marketing and consumer information campaigns
that carriers have instituted or may be formulating. The Commission has
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-170 focused
on truth-in-billing. 63 FR 55077, October 14, 1998; Truth-in-Billing,
CC Docket No. 98-170, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98-232 (rel.
Sept. 17, 1998). We think it more appropriate to consider these issues
in connection with that docket. Consequently, we refer these issues to
that proceeding.
F. Detailed PICC Billing of IXCs
31. AT&T, MCI, and Sprint have asked the Commission to require
price cap LECs to issue detailed bills that enable interexchange
carriers to audit the PICC charges that price cap LECs assess on them.
Creating additional requirements is not necessary at this time. We
already require price cap LECs to provide interexchange carriers with
customer-specific information about the PICCs they assess on them, and
to include a ``class of customer'' indicator on Customer Account Record
Exchange (CARE) transactions for new customer notifications.
Furthermore, our decisions in the order concerning the definition and
identification of primary residential lines and single line business
lines should facilitate clearer and more uniform billing of SLCs and
PICCs.
G. Procedural Matters
1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
32. The Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) in the Notice in this docket, as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 603. The Commission
sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including
comment on the IRFA. The RFA also requires the Commission to prepare a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact the order might have on small entities,
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
33. The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the
term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small
business concern'' under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission
has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its
activities. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 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). Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632. The SBA has further defined a small business for SIC categories
4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone
Communications, Except Radiotelephone) as a business with no more than
1,500 employees. 13 CFR 121.201. A small organization is generally
``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(4). ``Small
governmental jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than 50,000.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
34. Only price cap LECs currently assess SLCs and PICCs, and the
order places the responsibility for differentiating and identifying
primary residential lines and single line business lines only on price
cap LECs, as discussed above. Consequently, the order will not
significantly affect ``small organizations'' or ``small governmental
jurisdictions,'' and we only address the impact on small price cap
LECs. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of
``small entity'' specifically applicable to price-cap LECs. The closest
definition under SBA rules is that for establishments providing
``Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone.''
35. According to our most recent data, 1,371 carriers reported that
they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Fewer
than 20 of these carriers are price-cap incumbent LECs. Consistent with
our prior practice, we shall continue to exclude small incumbent LECs
from the definition of ``small entity.'' We consider these carriers
dominant in their field of operations. Some also are not independently
owned and operated, and most if not all likely have more than 1,500
employees. We therefore certify that our decisions in this proceeding
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the order, including
the certification, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. See 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A summary of the order and the certification will
also be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
2. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
36. The decision contained herein has been analyzed with respect to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13, and does
not contain new and/or modified information collections subject to OMB
review.
H. Ordering Clauses
37. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and
(j), 201-209, 218-222, 251, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-209, 218-222, 251,
254, and 403, that the order is adopted.
38. It is further ordered that section 69.152 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 69.152, is amended as set forth in the rule changes.
39. It is further ordered that the policies, rules, and
requirements adopted herein shall be effective July 1, 1999.
40. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public
Affairs, References Operations Division, shall send a copy of the
Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 69
Access charges, Communications common carriers, End-user common
line charge, Multi-line business line, Non-primary residential line,
Price cap local exchange carriers, Primary interexchange carrier
charge, Primary residential line, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Single line business line, Subscriber line charge,
Telephone.
[[Page 16358]]
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 69 as follows;
PART 69--ACCESS CHARGES
1. The authority citation for part 69 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 220, 254,
403.
2. Section 69.152 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 69.152 End user common line for price cap local exchange
carriers.
* * * * *
(h) Only one of the residential subscriber lines a price cap LEC
provides to a location shall be deemed to be a primary residential
line.
(1) For purposes of Sec. 69.152(h), ``residential subscriber line''
includes residential lines that a price cap LEC provides to a
competitive LEC that resells the line and on which the price cap LEC
may assess access charges.
(2) If a customer subscribes to residential lines from a price cap
LEC and at least one reseller of the price cap LEC's lines, the line
sold by the price cap LEC shall be the primary line, except that if a
resold price cap LEC line is already the primary line, the resold line
will remain the primary line should a price cap LEC subsequently sell
an additional line to that residence.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-7787 Filed 4-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P