WPC# 2MBVRKZ3|X 7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\&XP2)  KE3|X "i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuOgugugOuuAAuAuuuuOYAuuuugp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOuOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu匱T錌TOguF"u錇~u匌u yO'#X\  P6G;ɒP#2 K[ ZK KK "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\&XP"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""\4  pG;7nC:,"(# 1 X\II. BACKGROUND p"(# 6 X\III. STREAMLINING CONTRIBUTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS p"(# 8  X{4XX` ` A. ` ` Overview ` p"(# 8  Xd4XX` ` B. ` ` Use of a Consolidated Reporting Worksheet ` p"(# 9  XM4C. ` ` Changes to the Content of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet(#` p"(# 14  X64D. ` ` Timing Issuesp"(# 29  X 4E. ` ` Filing Locationp"(# 35  X!4 F. ` ` Procedures for Future Changes to the Telecommunications ` ` Reporting Worksheetp"(# 37  X"4 e G. ` ` Information Sharing and Delegation of Data Entry Functions Between Administrators(#` p"(# 41  X$4H. ` ` Additional Confidentiality Issues(#` p"(# 48  X%4I. ` ` Electronic Filing(#` p"(# 52 IV. CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRS AND NANPA MECHANISMSp"(# 55  XP(4A. ` ` Overviewp"(# 55"P(,))ZZ~&"Ԍ X4B. ` ` Basis for Assessing Contributionsp"(# 57  X4 C. ` ` Minimum and Fixed Annual Contributions to TRS and NANPA Mechanismsp"(# 71 V. BILLING AND COLLECTION FUNCTIONSp"(# 76 VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERSp"(# 78  Xv4XX` ` A.` ` Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ` p"(# 78  X_4XX` ` B. ` ` Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ` p"(# 81 VII. CONCLUSIONp"(# 82 VIII. ORDERING CLAUSESp"(# 83 Appendix A: List of Commenters Appendix B: Rules Amended Appendix C: Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Appendix D: Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet  Xb4vM: I. INTRODUCTION ׃  XK4#X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX0Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#  X44X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:M~ {O"'ԍ See USF Coalition Comments at 89; IDT Comments at 1112.q Moreover, these commenters state that it is unclear whether carriers will be "allowed to exclude revenues derived from services billed in a foreign point or whether carriers would be required to contribute based on revenues  X4ԩ other than settlement receipts from both U.S.billed traffic and foreignbilled traffic."H?D~ yO&'ԍ IDT Comments at 1112.H"?,N(N(ZZ0"Ԍ X'ԙ` ` b.  Discussion  X426. ` ` We decline to adopt these recommendations at this time. With respect to commenters' suggestions that we alter the instructions for filing by each legal entity, for tracking revenue from noncontributing resellers, and for reporting revenue where affiliates have interstate revenues, each of these policies was previously incorporated in the relevant  Xv4worksheets and furthers a particular accounting or auditing goal. We observe that none of these policies were highlighted in the Notice because our primary goal in this proceeding was to facilitate the consolidation of the various contributor reporting requirements into one  X14worksheet, not to revisit each underlying decision.n@Z1~ yO 'ԍ We also decline, as outside the stated scope of the proceeding, the suggestion of American Public Communications Council, which asks the Commission to use the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to  {O: 'calculate annual regulatory fees and bill contributors directly. See APCC Comments at 3.n While some of these proposals may have merit, we decline to adopt changes to these practices here.  X 427. ` ` Regarding the treatment of the universal service surcharges, we do not reconsider, in this Order, our current practice of including these charges as telecommunications revenue. This practice is consistent with the treatment currently afforded in the Universal Service Worksheet and with the treatment of surcharges generally in the worksheets for other support and cost recovery mechanisms. We observe that the Commission is considering issues concerning universal service surcharges in several other proceedings, including the specific issue of whether universal service surcharges should be  XK4counted as revenue from telecommunications services.SAK~ {O'ԍ See Division Announces Release of Revised Universal Service Worksheet, FCC Form 457, Public Notice,  {O'DA 981519, CC Docket Nos. 9721, 9645 (rel. July 31, 1998), recon. pending. See also TruthinBilling and  {Oz'Billing Format, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98232, CC Docket No. 98170 (rel. Sept. 17, 1998);  {OD'FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 98160, CC Docket No. 9645 (rel. July 17, 1998).S Accordingly, we defer consideration of this issue here and will take further steps based on the outcomes of these other proceedings.  X428. ` ` We similarly decline invitations to render pronouncements about the treatment of particular international service offerings. As stated above, and with specifically stated exceptions, we do not intend to use this proceeding to redefine those services whose revenues are included in the contribution bases. We note that the Commission is considering issues substantially similar to those raised by IDT and USF Coalition in the context of petitions for clarification in the universal service proceeding. Those petitions seek the exclusion, from the universal service contribution base, of revenues derived from providing services that originate  XN4in foreign points and terminate in the United States.iB\N~ {O%'ԍSee Petitions for Waiver of Section 54.703 Filed by: Gateway USA Holding Company, Inc., Cosmos  {Ok&'Telecom Marketing, Inc., Sitel, Inc., Microdevices Worldwide Inc., Startec Global Communications Corporation, Public Notice, DA 98865 CC Docket No. 9645, 13 FCC Rcd 9420 (rel. May 8, 1998).i Accordingly, we defer consideration of"N B,N(N(ZZ40" these issues to that proceeding. Pending a Commission ruling on these petitions, interstate carriers should continue to report their international revenue from domestic end users, as  X4directed in the worksheet instructions.C~ {OK'ԍ See Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9174; 47 C.F.R.  54.709(a)(1).  X' xD. XTiming Issues (#  Xv' 1. ` ` Background  XH429. ` ` In the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission observed xthat under current practice the worksheets for the universal service, TRS, and NANP  X 4mechanisms are due at different times of the year.D Z~ {O' 'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 19309 n.60. The Commission proposed that carriers would be able to file the new, consolidated worksheet at one time, to satisfy all three reporting requirements, as well as the requirements associated with the shared costs of local  X 4number portability.E ~ {Ot'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1930910. The Commission also noted that its universal service rules require subject carriers and service providers to file data twice per year and did not propose to  X 4eliminate the second filing.AF ~~ {O'ԍ Id.A  X{'v 2. ` ` Discussion  XM'` ` a.  Uniform Filing Date  X430. ` ` Consolidating the multiple existing filings into the Telecommunications vReporting Worksheet will reduce the number of times that carriers will need to assemble data and report it. The rules for universal service, TRS, NANP and local number portability currently do not specify a particular date for the filing of contributor reporting requirements; instead, the Bureau determined the filing date, after consultation with the respective  X4administrators.G~ {Om 'ԍ See, e.g., 1999 TRS Fund Worksheet Order, Appendix A; 1999 NANP Funding Worksheet Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 17888. We maintain this practice, but direct the Bureau to utilize a single filing date for the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet for the purposes of universal service, TRS,  X~4NANP, and local number portability.sHZ~j ~ yO$'ԍ Agent for service of process data required pursuant to section 413 of the Act is not necessarily filed at one time of the year, but at the time the carrier changes its agent for service of process in the District of  {O)&'Columbia. This requirement will remain unchanged. See 47 C.F.R.  1.47(h).s Our decision to adopt a single filing date is bolstered"~ H,N(N(ZZ0"  X4by all of the commenters to address this proposal.I~ {Oy'ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at 1; BellSouth Comments at 3; CTIA Comments at 2; USCC Comments at 12.  X431. ` ` Since we adopt the first iteration of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet in this order, we direct that, for the first year's filing, the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet should be filed on April 1st. Requiring filers to submit their completed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets on April 1st of each year will best balance the needs of carriers and other providers who must file the worksheet with the interests of the  X_4administrators and the Commission who must verify data and calculate contributions.OJ_"~ {O2 'ԍ See USAC Comments at 2.O Most firms have closed their books for the prior calendar year in February or March. Thus, we conclude that an April 1st filing date should allow most reporting carriers to prepare their submissions using audited data from closed books of account.  X 432. ` ` We clarify that the new Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet will become effective upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but not less than thirty days from publication in the Federal Register. It is our intention that contributors to the universal service support mechanisms should use the streamlined Form 499S version (FCC Form 499S) to satisfy the September 1, 1999 universal service filing. However, because we are required to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget for this revised information collection, it is possible that the new form may not be available for use for the September 1999 filing. We direct the Bureau to announce by Public Notice whether contributors should file the new September version or whether contributors should file, for a final time, the existing Universal Service Worksheet. For the purposes of TRS, NANP, LNP, universal service, the Form 499A version of the worksheet will be used to satisfy the April 1, 2000 filing. In addition, the worksheet will be available to be used by carriers to satisfy their  X4section 413 obligations concerning agents for service of process, discussed supra,KK~ {O='ԍ See Section III. B.K as soon as it is approved by OMB, but not less than thirty days after publication in the Federal Register. This timeframe should give administrators sufficient time to prepare their systems for the new worksheet and should give filers sufficient time to become familiar with the new worksheet.  Xg'` ` b.  September 1st Filing Date for Universal Service Support  XP'Mechanisms (#  X"4 33. ` ` The Commission observed, in the Notice, that while the adoption of a single Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet makes possible a single filing date, the universal service rules require that contributors file data twice a year so that the Commission can"FK,N(N(ZZ0"  X4develop contribution factors using relatively current information.L~ {Oy'ԍSee Universal Service Second Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 18400,  80. The Commission did not,  X4in the Notice, propose to disturb this procedure.MZ~ {O'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1930910. We therefore decline the invitations of USTA and other commenters to eliminate the September 1st filing for universal service  X4purposes.N~ {OX'ԍ See, e.g., USTA Comments at 3; Blooston Reply Comments at 7; BellSouth Reply Comments at 3; GST Comments at 17. As the Commission made clear in the Notice, elimination of the September 1st filing is beyond the scope of this proceeding.  Xv4!34. ` ` We do conclude, as GTE suggests, that a more streamlined form is acceptable  X_4for the September 1st filing.RO_F~ {OV'ԍ See, e.g., GTE Comments 6.R Accordingly, we adopt a "short form" for purposes of the September 1st filing that will omit data that is not essential for the midyear calculation of universal service contributions. For example, items related solely to the local number portability filing will be dropped from this short version of the worksheet. Further, the September 1st version of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet will seek less revenue detail than that requested in the April version. To that end, we conclude that having carriers provide detailed revenue data once each year is sufficient to identify underreporting of specific types of revenues or inadequate assignment of specific types of revenues. Since USAC calculates second half revenues by subtracting the September 1 firsthalf filed revenue from the April 1 wholeyear revenue, errors in the firsthalf reporting are automatically adjusted so that the wholeyear revenue is correct. Thus, by obtaining the detailed revenue data in the April filing, the Commission will still have the type of information needed to ensure that individual carriers and industry segments are contributing to the universal service support mechanisms on a fair and equitable basis. Overall, we expect that this modification will result in appreciable reductions in time to complete the form and in administrative costs.  X' xE. Filing Location(s)  X' 1. ` ` Background  X4"35. ` ` In the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission proposed  X~4xthat carriers file the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet at only one location.P~~ {O#'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 19310. The Commission noted that this proposal would require administrators to coordinate and share  XP4contributor data.~QPj ~ {Ok&'ԍSee Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 19310.~ The Commission proposed to allow administrators to share contributor data for this purpose and sought comment on whether the Commission would need to take any"9 Q,N(N(ZZ0"  X4additional steps to ensure that administrators have adequate ability to coordinate this process.R~ {Oy'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 19310.  X' 2. ` ` Discussion  X4#36. ` ` We conclude that subject carriers and service providers need only file one copy of their completed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, rather than separate copies with each administrator. The majority of commenters encourage the Commission to permit carriers to file one copy of the form at one address and we conclude that this action will further  XH4simplify our reporting requirements and will lower their administrative costs.SHZ~ {OS 'ԍ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 1; BellSouth Comments at 3; CTIA Comments at 2; SBC Comments at 1. As discussed below, we facilitate a single filing location by instructing the administrators to develop procedures for collecting, validating, and distributing the contributor data provided in the new  X 4Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. TZ ~ {Oh'ԍ See Section III. G. (discussing data entry of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet). The Bureau will announce by Public Notice the location for filing the April 2000 Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet.   X ' aF. Procedures for Future Changes to the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet  X ' 1. ` ` Background  Xy4$37. ` ` In the Universal Service Second Order on Reconsideration, the Commission delegated authority to the Bureau to waive, reduce, or eliminate the contributor reporting  XM4arequirements associated with the universal service support mechanisms.UM~ {O'ԍ See Universal Service Second Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 18442. See also 47 C.F.R.  54.711(c). The Bureau was also delegated authority to require any additional contributor reporting requirements necessary  X4to the sound and efficient administration of the universal service support mechanisms.V0 ~ {O'ԍ See Universal Service Second Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 18442. In the cases of TRS and numbering administration, the Bureau has regularly issued the annual  X4worksheets to gather the necessary contributor data.W ~ {Od"'ԍ See, e.g., 1999 TRS Fund Worksheet Order, Appendix A; 1999 NANP Funding Worksheet Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 17888.  X4%38. ` ` To make clear that the Bureau should continue to handle administrative details  X4associated with issuing the worksheets, in the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission proposed to delegate authority to make future changes to the"W,N(N(ZZ90"  X4Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau.X~ {Oy'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1931920. The Commission stated that certain changes in the worksheet would be necessary as an ordinary matter and sought comment on its proposal to amend its rules for the TRS Fund, NANP administration, local number portability administration, and universal service support mechanisms to include a specific delegation of authority to make future changes to the combined worksheet.  X_' 2. ` ` Discussion  X14&39. ` ` We adopt our proposal and delegate authority to make future changes to the  X 4Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau.Y Z~ {O% 'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1931920. As noted above, the Bureau already has broad authority to waive, reduce, or eliminate the contributor reporting requirements for universal service, and the Bureau has latitude with respect to the administration of the NANP, LNP, and TRS contributor reporting requirements.  X 4These delegations extend to administrative aspects of the requirements, e.g., where and when worksheets are filed, incorporating edits to reflect Commission changes to the substance of the mechanisms, and other similar details. Our decision to leave the bulk of these administrative  X{4tasks to the Bureau is generally supported by commenters addressing this issue.Z{~ {O'ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 23; Blooston Comments at 19; RTC Comments at 3.  XM4'40. ` ` So that these delegations are consistent, we amend the Commission's rules to grant the Common Carrier Bureau delegated authority, in keeping with the current delegation for universal service purposes, to waive, reduce, modify, or eliminate the contributor reporting requirements for the TRS, LNP, and NANP mechanisms, as necessary to preserve the sound  X4and efficient administration of these support and cost recovery mechanisms.V[~~ {O 'ԍ See Appendix B, Rules Amended.V We specify that the Bureau has the authority to "modify" these reporting requirements as a matter of clarification, because we believe that this authority is implied within the existing grant. The continued delegation of these tasks to the Bureau was generally supported by commenters  X4addressing this proposal.\~ {OV!'ԍ See, e.g., Blooston Comments at 19; CTIA Comments at 2 (suggesting that authority be delegated jointly to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Common Carrier Bureau); RTC Comments at 3. We reaffirm that this delegation extends only to making changes to the administrative aspects of the reporting requirements, not to the substance of the  Xg4underlying programs.]Zgj ~ yO%'ԍ  We expect that the Bureau will continue to consult with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau when issuing and making changes to the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet so as to be cognizant of the  {O''unique concerns of wireless carriers. See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 2; PCIA Comments at 8; Blooston Reply"'\,N(N("'" Comments at 10."gX],N(N(ZZ0"Ԍ X'ԙ G. XInformation Sharing and Delegation of Data Entry Functions Between  X'Administrators (#  X' 1. ` ` Background  X4(41. ` ` The Commission proposed to permit the sharing among the TRS, universal service, NANP, and local number portability administrators of certain revenue and contact  X_4information provided by contributors.S^\_X~ {Oh 'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1932022. We note that in the  {O2 'Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, and elsewhere in this Order, we refer to this revenue and contact information as "billing and collection information."S The Commission stated in the Notice that this proposal would permit administrators to crosscheck filed data and collection information where contributors are required to file for more than one purpose. The Commission observed that, currently, the administrators for the TRS, universal service, and NANP mechanisms generally are not permitted to use data obtained from contributors for any purpose unrelated  X 4to their administration of the mechanism._" |~ {O'ԍSee Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1932021. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  64.604(c)(4)(iii)(I) ("[t]he administrator shall not use such data except for purposes of administering the TRS Fund, calculating the regulatory fees of interstate common carriers, and aggregating such fee payments for submission to the Commission."); 47 C.F.R.  54.711(b); 47 C.F.R.  52.16(c). The Commission noted that the Commission, by temporary waiver of its rules, has created a limited exception that allows the TRS administrator to make available, and the universal service administrator to use, TRS contribution revenue information to compare revenue information provided by contributors on  X4the Universal Service Worksheet.`"f ~ {O'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1932021 (also noting that the Commission has proposed, in another proceeding, to amend its rules to permit the universal service administrator to review TRS data to verify revenue information provided by contributors to the universal service support mechanisms).  Xb4)42. ` ` The Commission proposed to authorize each of the four administrators to  XK4engage in similar sharing arrangements.aKP ~ {OL 'ԍSee Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1932022. The Commission tentatively concluded that the administrators would benefit significantly from this flexibility and that this proposal would reduce audit costs and increase the reliability of data on which contributions to these mechanisms are based. The Commission tentatively concluded that all sharing arrangements entered into among administrators would have to provide that the administrators will comply  X4with requests for confidential treatment of their data.b~ {Ok&'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 19322. "tb,N(N(ZZX0"Ԍ X4*43. ` ` In the Notice, the Commission also sought comment on whether such sharing agreements would allow administrators to delegate certain functions, such that, for example, one administrator might fulfill data entry and verification functions for more than one  X4mechanism.c~ {O4'ԍSee Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1932122. To this end, the Commission proposed to limit any such arrangements to ensure that proprietary information is not used for any improper purpose. The Commission proposed to require that any such agreements be approved by the Chief of the Common Carrier  Xv4Bureau.dvZ~ {O 'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1932122.  XH' 2. ` ` Discussion  X 4+44. ` ` We amend our rules to allow the administrators to share confidential contributor information with one another for the purposes of comparing individual contributors' revenue, contact, and payment history information. This change is supported by  X 4each of the four administrators and is widely supported by commenters.e ~ {Or'ԍ See, e.g., NECA Comments at 4; NBANC Comments at 5; USAC Comments at 4; Ameritech Comments at 3; MCI Comments at 4; SBC Comments at 1. Based on our experience with the limited sharing provisions currently allowed under our rules and on the record in this proceeding, we conclude that the ability to share contributor data will assist the administrators in monitoring compliance with the contribution requirements by revealing inconsistencies between revenue data reported to the different administrators. This sharing of information will also enhance the administrators' performance of their collection functions and thereby better ensure the integrity and efficient administration of the support and cost recovery mechanisms. Moreover, we amend our rules to ensure that such information cannot be used for purposes unrelated to the administration of the mechanisms; thus, ensuring proper  X4treatment of confidential contributor information.ofF~ {O'ԍ See Section III.H. (concerning Confidentiality Issues).o  X4,45. ` ` Starting with the April 2000 filing of the consolidated worksheet, the administrators will have a practical need to share carrierprovided information because we  X4direct in this order that filers need only submit one copy of their completed worksheets.g~ {O3!'ԍ See Section III.E. (discussing the filing location for the consolidated worksheet). The Bureau will announce by Public Notice the location for filing the April 2000 Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. Rather than mandate particular data sharing procedures, we order the administrators to develop efficient and effective procedures for collecting, validating, and distributing the centrallyfiled contributor data amongst themselves. We expect, for example, that it might be more cost effective to have one administrator perform the data entry and preliminary verification functions for more than one of the support and cost recovery mechanisms. Whatever their decision, we direct the administrators to file with the Bureau, within 90 days" 2 g,N(N(ZZc0" after release of this order, a summary of their proposed procedures for distributing the data from the worksheet.  X4-46. ` ` We conclude that the costs of collecting, validating, and distributing the carrierprovided information and, any savings derived from consolidating redundant administrative tasks should be allocated equitably among the administrators. Accordingly, we order the administrators to include in their filed summary a description of how related costs will be equitably apportioned. We delegate to the Bureau the authority to review the administrators' summary, including the proposed cost allocation plan.  X 4.47. ` ` To preserve the integrity of the support and cost recovery mechanisms, it is important to ensure that all contributor data is collected. We thus expect that the summarized procedures should reflect the administrators' commitment to ensuring that all required data is collected and validated.  X ' vH. XAdditional Confidentiality Issues (#  Xy' 1. ` ` Background  XK4/48. ` ` The Commission proposed, as currently allowed under the Universal Service vWorksheet, to permit carriers filing the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to certify that the revenue data contained in their submissions are privileged or confidential commercial or financial information and that disclosure of such information would likely cause substantial  X4harm to the competitive position of the entity filing the worksheet.h~ {Oh'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 19322. The Commission proposed that carriers be able to make this certification on their Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet and request Commission nondisclosure of information contained in the worksheet by checking a box on the Worksheet, in lieu of submitting a separate request  X4pursuant to section 0.459 of the Commission's rules.aiZ~ {O'ԍ Id. See also 47 C.F.R.  0.459.a The Commission stated that if it were to receive a request for or propose to disclose the information, the carrier would be required to make the full showing that the rules require in a request for withholding from public  XN4inspection information submitted to the Commission.QjN~ {O 'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  0.459.Q The Commission sought comment on this proposal.  X ' 2. ` ` Discussion  X4049. ` ` We adopt our proposal to permit carriers filing the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to certify that the revenue data contained in their submissions are privileged or confidential commercial or financial information and that disclosure of such"!~j,N(N(ZZf 0" information would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the entity filing  X4the worksheet.k~ {Ob'ԍ See Appendix D, Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. We note that Blooston requests that the Commission grant confidential treatment for other information on the worksheet, such as the facsimile numbers and email addresses of the contact persons. Any such request for confidential treatment would have to be separately pleaded pursuant to section 0.459. 47 C.F.R.  0.459. We note, however, that the Commission does not plan to routinely release this information. As proposed, we amend our rules so that filers will be able to make this certification on their Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet and request Commission nondisclosure of information contained in the worksheet simply by checking a box on the worksheet, in lieu of submitting a separate request pursuant to section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. This proposal is widely supported by carriers, many of whom indicate  Xv4their desire to seek nondisclosure of the revenue data included in the worksheet.lvz~ {O 'ԍ See, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 8; Blooston Comments at 10; GST Comments at 18; MCI Comments at 4; USTA Comments at 4. Based on these comments and on our experience with the Universal Service Worksheet, we believe that such a certification will provide an extra level of convenience that will reduce the burdens associated with this reporting requirement.  X 4150. ` ` We make clear, however, that simply requesting confidential treatment by means of this check-box does not necessarily entitle the filer to nondisclosure. Indeed, if the Commission is to receive a request for disclosure of the information on the worksheets, or if the Commission proposes to disclose the information, the filer would be required to make the  X 4full showing required under our rules.m$ ~ {O,'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  0.459. See also Examination of Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of  {O'Confidential Information Submitted to the Commission, FCC 98184, GC Docket No. 9655 (rel. Aug. 1998) (listing the showings required in a request that information be withheld and stating that the Commission may defer action on such requests until a formal request for public inspection has been made). For example, we expect that the Commission would be disinclined to withhold information related to the size of an individual carrier's contribution (information which third parties could potentially use to estimate that carrier's revenues) in an enforcement action against a carrier for failure to make a required  XK4contribution to one of the support or cost recovery mechanisms.nK ~ {O'ԍ See, e.g., Operator Communications, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 98197, File No. ENF9807, NAL/Acct. No. 816EF0005,  4 n.13 (rel. Aug. 14, 1998).  X4251. ` ` In light of our decision to allow administrators to share contributor revenue data, we take additional measures to ensure the nondisclosure of confidential submissions. We accordingly modify our rules to extend each administrator's confidentiality obligations to the data obtained from other funds. Moreover, we amend our rules to ensure that the administrators shall only use contributor data whether obtained directly from contributors or from administrators for the purpose administering the support and cost recovery"n,N(N(ZZ0"  X4mechanisms.EoX~ yOy'ԍ We note that the TRS rules enable the TRS administrator to use data obtained from contributors to be used for calculating the regulatory fees of interstate common carriers, and aggregating such fee payments for submission to the Commission. We do not alter these provisions.E We recognize that several commenters express concern over the protection of confidential information, but no commenter offers us any evidence to contradict our belief that the administrators have been effective, thus far, in maintaining the confidential nature of  X4the revenue data that are currently filed.p~ {OT'ԍ See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 4; Star Comments at 4; MCI Comments at 4. Nor does any commenter indicate that the limited sharing agreement in effect between the TRS and the universal service administrators has led to any greater risk of disclosure. Further, we observe that since all four administrators will use essentially the same revenue information, as filed in the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, permitting sharing of information between administrators does not appear to present a greater risk of improper disclosure. We conclude that, by restricting disclosure and limiting the use of contributorprovided information, our rules will be sufficient to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of confidential data.  X ' vI. XElectronic Filing (#  X ' 1. ` ` Background  X4352. ` ` In the Notice, the Commission proposed to require the administrators to provide  Xy4vfor and encourage electronic filing of the consolidated form.qyz~ {O'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1932223. The Commission stated that electronic filing reduces data entry expenses for the administrator, reduces confusion, and might allow some mistakes to be detected before carriers file data. The Commission stated that this proposal is consistent with the directives of the Office of Management and Budget  X4(OMB). rZ ~ {O'ԍSee Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, OMB No. 30600536 (Feb. 24, 1998) (approving the TRS Worksheet and stating OMB "encourages the FCC to adopt electronic filing for this collection . . . .").  The Commission stated its expectation that any transition to an electronic filing system would require considerable coordination between the administrators, the telecommunications industry, and the Commission, and it sought comment on the nature and  X4extent of the administrative costs to implement an electronic filing system.s. ~ {O!'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 19323. In addition, the Commission expressed its commitment to making electronic filing and other electronic  X4applications accessible to persons with disabilities to the fullest extent possible.t ~ {O%'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 19323 (noting that electronic filing is subject to program accessibility requirements of section 1.850 of our rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.850). "t,N(N(ZZ90"Ԍ X' 2. ` ` Discussion  X4453. ` ` We conclude, based on our experience in other proceedings, that making available an electronic filing system for the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet may allow filers and administrators to reduce costs and improve accuracy. Accordingly, we take initial steps in this proceeding to develop and move to an electronic filing system. We expect, however, that the costs and benefits of an electronic filing system can vary significantly depending on the design of the system. Indeed, in light of the complexities raised in the record by both carriers and administrators, we conclude that it is imperative for the development of and the transition to an eventual electronic filing system to be conducted  X 4with great involvement from the administrators and carriers.u ~ {O 'ԍ See, e.g., MCI Comments at 5; GTE Comments at 4; Blooston Reply Comments at 79.  X 4554. ` ` As an initial step, we direct the administrators to assess and report to the Bureau, within 180 days of the release of this order, on the feasibility of implementing electronic filing. We expect the administrators to address the potential startup and ongoing operating costs to the administrators and carriers of an electronic system. The administrators should also address measures and costs associated with ensuring the accuracy and security of filed contributor data. We agree with those commenters that state that any proposal for  Xb4electronic filing should not require expensive startup costs for filers.qvbZ~ {Om'ԍ See, e.g., Blooston Comments at 1516; MCI Comments at 5.q Moreover, we conclude that any electronic filing proposal must satisfy a costbenefit analysis and instruct the administrators to conduct such an analysis. Finally, we restate our commitment to making electronic filing and other electronic applications accessible to persons with disabilities to the  X4fullest extent possible.$w~ yO'ԍ Electronic filing is subject to the program accessibility requirements of section 1.850 of our rules. 47  {Ok'C.F.R.  1.850. See also Workforce Investment Act of 1998, P.L. No. 105220, 112 Stat. 936 (Aug. 7, 1998).$ Therefore, the administrators' report should address their ability both now and on a continuing basis to make electronic systems accessible to persons with disabilities.  X4 IV. CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRS AND NANPA MECHANISMS ă  X|' A. Overview  XN4655. ` ` In this section, we adopt our proposals to alter the revenue bases for the TRS and NANP mechanisms so that enduser telecommunications revenues will be used to calculate contributions for all four mechanisms. In addition, we also alter the current practices for assessing minimum contributions to the TRS and NANP mechanisms to lessen regulatory burdens on small carriers and telecommunications service providers. We conclude that these modifications will not only fulfill the statutory directives which authorize these contributions, but will also further the deregulatory goals of the Act by rationalizing the" Fw,N(N(ZZ0" multiple obligations imposed on regulated communications companies.  X4756. ` ` As a preliminary matter, we reject MCI's procedural argument that the Commission may not alter the revenue base or minimum contributions rules because it did not  X4give adequate notice of these changes.kx~ {O'ԍ See MCI Comments at 24; MCI Reply Comments at 23.k There is no dispute that these proposed changes  X4were expressly noticed in the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice. Indeed, MCI does  Xx4not appear to claim that the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice itself is insufficient, but instead argues that because the Commission proposed these changes in a different docket than the underlying dockets, the Commission has not given adequate notice to the parties in  X54the underlying proceedings.y5Z~ yO@ 'ԍ MCI Comments at 3 ("[T]he Commission has failed to provide notice to parties in open dockets in which these funds were created, in violation of the APA."). We disagree. Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) requires that an agency afford interested parties adequate notice of, and an  X 4opportunity to comment on, the provisions that appear in the agency's final regulations.Dz ~ yOj'ԍ 5 U.S.C.  553.D Courts have interpreted this to require that an agency provide "sufficient factual detail and  X 4rationale for the rule to permit interested parties to comment meaningfully."{ B~ {O'ԍ Florida Power & Light Co. v. United States, 846 F.2d 765, 771 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1045 (1989). The  X 4Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice appeared in the Federal Register, and it contained adequate, indeed explicit, notice of the provisions we adopt today. We also observe that the caption to this docket specifically references the four underlying mechanisms; a point which we believe is not essential to satisfy the requirements of the APA, but that further undercuts MCI's claim that it did not have adequate notice of these proposals. Moreover, MCI cannot claim any actual lack of notice, as it has participated fully in this proceeding, filing both initial and reply comments. Accordingly, we believe that no further notice is required to comply with the notice provisions of the APA.  X' B. Basis for Assessing Contributions  X' 1. ` ` Background  X4857. ` ` In choosing a particular revenue basis, the Commission selects the category of revenues that will be used to allocate carriers' contributions. Contributions to the TRS and NANP mechanisms are currently based on contributors' share of gross telecommunications  XT4revenuesq|ZT~ {O%'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  64.604(c)(4)(iii)(A). See TRS Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300,  1216. Gross telecommunications revenues consist of telecommunications revenues that carriers collect from all sources, including enduser revenue and revenue from services provided to other carriers for resale.q and net telecommunications revenues,}$T ~ {O'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  52.17. See Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19541. As defined for purposes of NANP, net telecommunications revenues consist of gross revenues from provision of telecommunications services reduced by all payments for telecommunications services and facilities that have  {O'been paid to other telecommunications carriers. See 47 C.F.R.  52.17(b). respectively. In the Contributor"T},N(N(ZZ0"  X4Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission proposed to change the revenue basis for contributions to the TRS and NANP mechanisms, so that contributors would base their  X4contributions on enduser telecommunications revenue.~~ {O9'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1931114. Enduser telecommunications revenue consists of telecommunications revenues that carriers collect from end users and includes revenues such as those derived from subscriber line charges and from carriers that  X4purchase telecommunications services for their own internal use.l F~ yO 'ԍ For purposes of universal service, enduser telecommunications revenues generally includes revenues  {ON 'derived from noncontributors, including carriers that fall within the de minimis exemption and entities that are otherwise exempt, such as Internet service providers, broadcasters, systems integrators that derive less than five percent of their systems integration revenues from telecommunications, and nonprofit schools, colleges,  {O'universities, libraries, and rural health care providers. See FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service; Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure  {O:'and Pricing, End User Common Line Charge, Fourth Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97420, CC Docket Nos.  {O'9645, 96262, 941, 91213, 9572 (rel. Dec. 30, 1997); FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Report to Congress, FCC 9867, CC Docket No. 9645,  6667 n.133 (rel. Apr. 10, 1998); Instructions for Completing  {O'the Worksheet for Filing Contributions to the Universal Service Support Mechanism, FCC Form 457, at 18. But  {O`'see Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9186 (explaining that carriers providing services exclusively to noncontributing government or public safety entities are not required to contribute). In the Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded that changing the funding basis to enduser telecommunications revenue would reduce burdens overall for carriers because it would mean using the same methodology for each of the four support or cost recovery mechanisms  X34addressed in the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice.  X 4958. ` ` For the purposes of NANP, the Commission also proposed that carriers that provided telecommunications service during the base year with no enduser telecommunications revenue be required to make a fixed contribution of one hundred dollars ($100) to the NANP cost recovery mechanism. The Commission tentatively concluded that assessing this sum would satisfy the statutory language of section 251(e)(2) and at the same time would not be economically burdensome for these primarilylarge carriers that serve other  X}4carriers.}z~ {O!'ԍ See LNP Cost Recovery Order,  113114 (reaching same conclusion with respect to cost recovery for administration of longterm local number portability). "f,N(N(ZZ0"Ԍ X' 2. ` ` Discussion  X4:59. ` ` In light of the Commission's experience since adopting revenue bases for TRS and NANP and in light of our efforts to streamline contributor reporting requirements, we modify our rules for contributions to the TRS and NANP mechanisms so that contributions will be based on enduser telecommunications revenues. Basing contributions to these mechanisms on enduser telecommunications revenue will effectively carry out the statutory  X_4mandates in section 225 and 251 for financing of TRS and NANP.[_~ {O'ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  225, 251(e).[ In addition to fulfilling the statutory directives, moving to an enduser telecommunications revenue basis will reduce carriers' administrative expenses associated with these reporting requirements. Indeed, given our proposal to create a unified contributor collection worksheet, we believe that changing the funding basis to enduser telecommunications revenue will appreciably reduce administrative burdens overall for carriers.  X 4;60. ` ` Basing contributions on enduser telecommunications revenues is consistent with the statutory language of section 225 and its requirement that "costs caused by interstate telecommunications relay services shall be recovered from all subscribers for every interstate  Xy4service."MyZ~ yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  225(d)(3)(B).M As the Commission determined in the TRS Third Report and Order, recovering interstate relay costs from all common carriers that provide interstate service on the basis of  XM4their interstate revenues will accomplish this goal.pM~ {O'ԍ See TRS Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300,  12.p End users are a reasonable proxy for subscribers, so collecting contributions from carriers based on revenue derived from end users satisfies section 225.  X4<61. ` ` Similarly, collecting contributions to the NANP cost recovery on the basis of enduser telecommunications satisfies the requirements of section 251(e). Section 251(e) of the Act directs that "[t]he cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a  X4competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission."W|~ yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(e)(2). Even though there is no explicit statutory requirement to do so in section 225, we conclude that the principle of competitive neutrality is consistent with section 225 and that basing contributions to the TRS Fund on a competitively neutral mechanism would advance the intent embodied in the  {O"'Congressional goal of "a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework." See Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, S. Conf. Rep. No. 230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 113 (1996).W As the Commission  X~4previously found in the LNP Cost Recovery Order, the enduser telecommunications revenue basis satisfies the section 251 directive that contributions be assessed on a competitively  XR4neutral basis.fR. ~ {O1''ԍ See LNP Cost Recovery Order,  106107.f In particular, the Commission found this basis to be competitively neutral"R ,N(N(ZZ0" because it does not give one service provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage when competing for a subscriber. Further, basing contributions on enduser telecommunications revenues will prevent contributions to the NANP administration cost recovery from disparately affecting the ability of carriers to earn a normal return. We affirm this analysis and conclude that collecting contributions to the NANP administration cost recovery based on  X4enduser telecommunications revenues will be competitively neutral.~ {O'ԍSee, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 45; IDT Comments at 16; Star Comments at 24. We note that several Bell Operating Companies argued to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit that the net telecommunications revenue methodology would not be competitively neutral if states do not permit carriers to flow through their numbering administration costs in the prices that they charge their competitors for  {O( 'telecommunications services and facilities. California v. FCC, 124 F.3d 934 (8th Cir., 1997). The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners' contentions were speculative and not ripe for review because no state had concluded that carriers could not include numbering administration charges in the prices for services or facilities  {O 'sold to other telecommunications service providers. Id. at 944. Adoption of an end-user telecommunications revenue basis should moot this issue.  X_4=62. ` ` Adopting an enduser telecommunications revenue basis for the TRS and NANP mechanisms will avoid the problem of double counting that is unavoidable with contributions based on gross telecommunications revenues. That is, a gross telecommunications revenue basis can disadvantage resellers by assigning contributions to the same service twice: once when the wholesale carrier collects revenue from the reseller, and  X 4again when the retail carrier collects revenue from its customer.X ~ yO;'ԍ Under this arrangement, resellers would be disadvantaged visavis nonresellers of the same retail service, because the resellers' prices would necessarily reflect the double payment of contributions for the same services. In the TRS Third Report  X 4and Order, the Commission agreed that a gross telecommunications revenue basis would produce double counting but observed that the amount of double counting for TRS purposes  X 4would not be material. ~ {O'ԍ TRS Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300,  13 ("[T]he potential unfairness of double counting is not sufficient to justify excluding access or resale service from contribution."). At that time, the Commission concluded that, for TRS purposes,  X4basing contributions on other revenue bases (e.g., net telecommunications revenue or enduser telecommunications revenue) would require more information and administrator review and that "the cost of identifying double counting would probably exceed the contribution  XQ4associated with any double counting."Q~ {O!'ԍTRS Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300,  13. We note that there is no explicit statutory requirement in section 225 that cost recovery for TRS be competitively neutral. Because most carriers now report this data for the purposes of universal service and longterm number portability, this concern has been rendered immaterial. Moreover, we believe that adopting a single reporting worksheet largely eliminates these concerns about added costs.  X4>63. ` ` In choosing an enduser telecommunications revenue basis, we decline the suggestions of MCI that we use a net telecommunications revenue basis for all four support"r,N(N(ZZ10" and cost recovery mechanisms. We consider MCI's proposal only in the context of the NANP and TRS mechanisms, because we stated clearly in the Notice that the revenue bases for universal service and number portability would not be addressed in this proceeding. We agree with MCI that the net telecommunications revenue basis is also competitively neutral  X4and satisfies the requirements of section 251.jZ~ {O'ԍ See, e.g., MCI Comments at 78. We make no specific finding about whether the net telecommunications revenue basis would satisfy section 225 because, even assuming that proposition to be true, we find that an enduser telecommunications revenue basis will be administratively more efficient, at this time.j However, because section 251(e)(2) requires that we select a competitively neutral basis for contributions, but specifies no other criteria that must be used in the selection, we conclude that we have discretion under the statute to choose among competitively neutral mechanisms based upon other valid regulatory goals, such  XH4as administrative efficiency.iH~ {O 'ԍ See also LNP Cost Recovery Order,  108.i We conclude, as is amply supported in the record, that adopting an enduser telecommunications revenue basis will increase administrative  X 4efficiencies and reduce carrier confusion. As the Commission explained in the Universal  X 4Service Order, an enduser telecommunications revenue basis is administratively more  X 4efficient than a net telecommunications revenue basis.h |~ {O'ԍ See Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9206.h Moreover, stated again, we expect that using the same funding basis for all four of the support and cost recovery mechanisms will reduce confusion and minimize the amount of information that we need to collect from  X 4contributors.u^ ~ {Oj'ԍ See, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 4; Star Comments at 3 (stating that "difference in contribution bases is  {O4'unnecessarily burdensome and can lead to errors in preparing the necessary forms and contributions"). Accord  {O'TRA Comments at 34. Contra MCI Comments at 78.u  X}4?64.` ` We are unpersuaded by MCI's contention that the enduser telecommunications revenue method is not competitively neutral simply because it will attribute a greater portion  XO4of direct contributions to IXCs.TO4 ~ {O4'ԍ See MCI Reply Comments at 4.T As support for its proposal that the Commission utilize a net telecommunications revenue basis for NANP and TRS, MCI correctly observes that the portion of contributions paid by IXCs will likely increase, as compared to that paid directly by local service providers, under an enduser telecommunications revenue basis, primarily because toll carriers, including IXCs, will contribute based on the revenues they collect from their end users to pay incumbent LECs' access charges. As described above, however, the  X4enduser basis meets our two prong test for competitive neutrality, as set out in the LNP Cost  X4Recovery Order.f ~ {O'%'ԍ See LNP Cost Recovery Order,  106107.f The fact that carriers whether IXCs or incumbent LECs providing interstate toll services to end users may bear a slightly higher portion of contributions does not alter that analysis, because, even assuming that MCI's projections are correct, this change"X ,N(N(ZZ0" would not give one service provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage when competing for a particular subscriber.  X4@65. ` ` Further, we believe that MCI's analysis of the purported burden shift falls short. We do not believe that this change in revenue basis will significantly favor one segment of the industry over another. To the extent that direct contributions are shifted, we note that IXCs would incur those costs attributable to access revenues under both a net  X_4telecommunications revenue basis and an enduser telecommunications revenue basis.,~_~ {O'ԍ See Telecommunications Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Second Order on Reconsideration and Fourth Report and Order, FCC 93463, CC Docket No. 90-571, 9 FCC Rcd 1637 (rel. Sept. 29, 1993) (clarifying that TRS Fund contributions may be treated as exogenous costs under price cap regulation). To this end, we believe that AT&T's suggestion concerning price cap reductions would be more  {O 'appropriately considered in access charge proceedings. See 47 C.F.R.  69.1. See also LNP Cost Recovery  {O 'Order,  109 (suggesting that incumbent LECs would likely pass on shared costs of number portability to IXCs through exogenous treatment in their access rates)., For example, contributions to the TRS mechanism under the current gross telecommunications revenue basis are treated as exogenous costs under price cap regulation, meaning that the overwhelming majority of these costs are passed through to toll carriers under either  X 4methodology.; ~ {O'ԍ Id.; As the Commission concluded in the LNP Cost Recovery Order, because the enduser telecommunications revenue basis reaches the same result, but without the inefficiency and added complication of the passthrough step, we prefer the enduser  X 4telecommunications revenue basis.d ~ {O'ԍ See LNP Cost Recovery Order,  109.d  X4A66. ` ` We expect that using the same funding basis for all of these purposes would reduce confusion and minimize the amount of information we need to collect from contributors. Numerous commenters praised this proposal because it would simplify our  XM4requirements.pM2 ~ {O0'ԍ See, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 4; TRA Comments at 34.p Indeed, using the same revenue basis for all four funds furthers the deregulatory, burdenreducing objectives that we seek to achieve by creating a unified contributor collection worksheet. Only MCI objects to an enduser telecommunications basis  X4on administrative grounds. ~ {O}!'ԍ See MCI Comments at 6. Contra Ameritech Comments at 2; BellSouth Comments at 4; IDT Comments at 16; MediaOne Comments at 2. We disagree with MCI and note that the Commission found, in  X4the Universal Service Order, that an enduser telecommunications revenue basis will be easy for carriers to administer because carriers already track their sales to endusers for billing  X4purposes.g~ {O&'ԍSee Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9208.g An enduser revenue basis requires marginally more revenue data, compared with a gross revenue basis. However, this additional data is now collected from most of the same" ,N(N(ZZ\0" respondents as part of the universal service reporting requirements now to be combined in the consolidated worksheet. Thus, the change to enduser telecommunications revenues for TRS purposes should represent little, if any, added administrative burden to either contributors or the administrator.  X4B67. ` ` We observed in the Notice that, by changing the funding bases to enduser telecommunications revenues, we would effectively exempt from contributions a number of carriers that have significant gross telecommunications revenue but no enduser  XH4telecommunications revenue, for example, carriers providing wholesale services.H~ {O 'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 19319. For the purposes of TRS contributions, we conclude that, because section 225 states that the costs of telecommunications relay services should be borne by "all subscribers," the Act allows for, but does not require, contributions from all carriers. Accordingly, we conclude that the modifications made herein will effectively carry out the Congressional intent reflected in section 225.  X 4C68. ` ` In the case of NANP, we note that section 251(e)(2) requires that the "cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements . . . shall be borne by  Xy4all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis . . . ."yZ~ {O'ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(2). See LNP Cost Recovery Order,  113114. Given the statutory directive that contributions be collected from "all telecommunications carriers," we require carriers that provided telecommunications service during the base year and that have no enduser telecommunications revenue to make a fixed contribution of twentyfive dollars ($25) to  X4the NANP cost recovery mechanism."~ yO'ԍ While the Commission proposed in the Notice a fixed contribution of $100 for carriers with no enduser telecommunications revenues, we believe that the $25 contribution will be easier to administer, since it is consistent with the $25 minimum contribution rule that we adopt for contributors with enduser  {O'telecommunications revenues. See Section IV. C. We conclude that assessing this sum will satisfy the statutory language of section 251(e)(2) and at the same time will not be economically  X4burdensome for these primarilylarge wholesale carriers.~ {Ov'ԍ See LNP Cost Recovery Order,  113114 (reaching same conclusion with respect to cost recovery for administration of longterm local number portability). Finally, we observe that although an enduser telecommunications revenue basis would otherwise relieve pure wholesalers, which have no enduser revenue, from directly bearing costs of number administration, the enduser method does not exclude wholesale revenues from the revenue base that determines  X4carriers' contributions. As the Commission explained in the Universal Service Order, wholesale charges are built into retail rates, and thus the revenue basis still reflects wholesale  Xg4revenue.hg0 ~ {OH&'ԍ See Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9207.h "P! ,N(N(ZZ0"Ԍ X4D69. ` ` To minimize confusion for contributors and the administrators, we wish to make the transition to contributions based on enduser telecommunications revenues as soon as possible. For purposes of TRS, we recognize that many contributors are still making monthly installment payments toward their funding year 1999 contribution (which covers the April 26, 1999 through March 26, 2000 period) and we make clear that those contributions to the TRS Fund for the current funding period will continue to be based on gross telecommunications revenues. Because the contributor data needed to calculate TRS contributions for the funding year 2000 will not be available until April 2000, we will extend the current TRS funding period, so that contributions to the TRS Fund will continue to be based on gross telecommunications revenues and the current fund factor through the end of  X 4June 2000.(Z ~ {O 'ԍ See Telecommunications Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Order, DA 982481, CC Docket No. 90571 (rel. Dec. 2, 1998) (determining contribution factor for the April 26, 1999 through March 26, 2000 period).( As of July 1, 2000 contributions to the TRS Fund will be based on enduser telecommunications revenues. A new factor will be developed in time for contributions in July 2000 and we will shift the fiscal year for TRS, so that the funding period will run from July 1st of each year through June 30th of the following year.  X 4E70. ` ` Indeed, we will shift the fiscal years for both TRS and NANP, so that the funding periods for these mechanisms will be more closely timed with the receipt of annual contributor data in the April filing of the new consolidated worksheet. We also make clear that contributions to the NANP cost recovery will continue to be based on net telecommunications revenues through the end of the current funding year, which covers fund administration from March 1999 through February 2000. The NANP Billing and Collection Agent will begin collecting contributions based on enduser telecommunications revenues for the funding year 2000. So that we may transition the NANP funding period to run from July 1st of each year through June 30th of the following year, we direct that the funding year 2000 will cover the sixteen month period from March 2000 through June 2001. We direct that, for purposes of the NANP funding year 2000, the Billing and Collection Agent will use contributor data filed in the September consolidated worksheet to develop the fund factor and should use the contributor data filed in the April consolidated worksheet to perform a "true X|4up" for the contributions in July 2000."|~ yO'ԍ A "trueup" will be necessary because the September worksheet reports only half year revenue data and  {O'because it may not collect data from all NANP contributors, e.g., some telecommunications carriers that are de minimis for universal service purposes will not file the September worksheet. We nevertheless expect that the revisions performed in the "trueup" will be minor in terms of contributors added and contributions adjusted. Thereafter, the NANP funding period will return to the twelve month cycle from July to June with contributions based on the April filing of the worksheet. "7",N(N(ZZ0"Ԍ X' vC. XMinimum and Fixed Annual Contributions to TRS and NANPA Mechanisms (#  X' 1. ` ` Background  X4F71. ` ` Pursuant to section 64.604(c)(4)(iii) of the Commission's rules, every carrier vproviding interstate telecommunications services "must contribute at least $100 per year" for  Xv4the financing of TRS.Sv~ yO'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  64.604(c)(4)(iii).S Similarly, contributors to the NANP cost recovery have been  X_4required to make a minimum payment of $100 per year.P_X~ {Oh 'ԍ The Commission, in the NANP Third Report and Order, delegated to the NANPA Billing and Collection Agent the authority to perform collection activities, including the authority to design a reporting worksheet to collect information for assessments calculations. 47 C.F.R.  52.16. In designing the worksheet, the NANPA Billing and Collection Agent imposed a one hundred dollar ($100) minimum payment as a means of covering  {O 'administrative expenses. See 1999 NANP Funding Worksheet Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 17888.P In the Contributor Reporting  XJ4Requirements Notice, the Commission proposed to reduce the current requirements for  X54minimum annual contributions to these mechanisms.5 ~ {O'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1931719.  X 4G72. ` ` Specifically, the Commission proposed to eliminate the one hundred dollar  X 4($100) minimum contribution rule as applied to the TRS Fund. ~ {O?'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1931819. For purposes of NANP, the Commission proposed a twopart structure for determining minimum contributions. First, the Commission proposed that telecommunications carriers with no enduser telecommunications revenues make a fixed contribution of one hundred dollars ($100) per year to the NANPA cost recovery mechanism. Second, for those telecommunications carriers with any enduser telecommunications revenues, the Commission proposed to eliminate the minimum contribution rule. The Commission tentatively concluded that these proposed changes would provide a significant benefit to small telecommunications carriers and sought comment on its  X84proposals.;80 ~ {O'ԍ Id.; ` `  X ' 2. ` ` Discussion  X4H73. ` ` We modify our proposals and amend our rules to reduce substantially the one hundred dollar minimum contributions to a twentyfive dollar minimum. Our experience with the TRS and NANP mechanisms persuades us that it is possible to lower the one hundred dollar minimum while protecting the administrative integrity and efficiency of the TRS and NANP mechanisms. As discussed in the Notice, the higher minimum appears unnecessary to cover the administrative costs of billing and collection for the primarily smaller companies"i# ,N(N(ZZ0"  X4that owe contributions of less than one hundred dollars.x~ yOy'ԍ In the Notice, we noted that NECA has estimated administrative costs to be approximately $20.00 per  {OA'contributor. See FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Recommended Decision, FCC 96J3, CC  {O 'Docket No. 9645, 12 FCC Rcd 87, 489 (rel. Nov. 8, 1996) (discussing the accuracy of this figure); Universal  {O'Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9188 n. 2060. No commenter has contested this estimate. See also Notice of Ex Parte Presentation, from NECA to Ms. Magalie Roman Salas (Feb. 8, 1999).x Although a number of commenters  X4support eliminating a minimum contribution altogether,,Z~~ {O'ԍ See, e.g., APCC Comments at 2 n.1 ("For some of the smallest PSPs, the $100 minimum TRS payment could represent a payment larger than the aftercost profits received from end users during an entire year."); SBC Comments at 2; TRA Comments at 6., we nevertheless find that this would tend to undermine the efficient administration of the TRS funding mechanism.  X4I74. ` ` Simply put, such contributions, no matter how small, impose certain administrative costs (for example, costs to process carrier worksheets). We think that a twentyfive dollar minimum contribution is sufficient to cover these costs while ensuring that all carriers also contribute toward funding the program. Further, by reducing the currentlyimposed minimum by 75 percent, we conclude that we will benefit small telecommunications carriers who will owe significantly lower TRS and NANP payments than they currently  X 4owe.V ~ {Ok'ԍ See Appendix B, Rules Amended.V In the case of both TRS and NANP, we find nothing in the statute to prevent us from implementing a minimum contribution. We conclude that it is within our discretion to adopt reasonable minimum contributions as a matter of administrative convenience and to promote the administrative integrity and efficiency of the mechanisms. We conclude that a twentyfive dollar minimum is such a reasonable minimum and will help to ensure that result.  X4J75. ` ` Moreover, since we determined above that successfully administering the  Xy4NANP per the mandate of Congress requires that all carriers make NANP contributions, we conclude that all telecommunications carriers both those with enduser telecommunications revenues and those without enduser telecommunications revenues should make a minimum  X64contribution of twentyfive dollar per year to the NANPA cost recovery mechanism.62 ~ {O'ԍ See Section IV. B. 2. (discussing fixed contributions to NANP mechanism by carriers with no enduser telecommunications revenues).  X4u  V. BILLING AND COLLECTION FUNCTIONS ă  X' A.Background  X4K76. ` ` In a Notice of Inquiry attached to the Contributor Reporting Requirements  X4Notice, the Commission asked parties to suggest additional steps that it could take to reduce burdens and maximize the efficiency of the contributor reporting requirements process, while"$ ,N(N(ZZ0"  X4maintaining accuracy and accountability in the administration of the mechanisms.~ {Oy'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1932326. The Commission asked commenters to consider whether the Commission should consolidate all billing and collection functions for the four support and cost recovery mechanisms with a  X4single agent.Z~ {O'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1932326. The Commission sought comment about whether the creation of a single billing and collection agent would permit contributors to file a single check for multiple  X4funding purposes, e.g., the local number portability administration, the NANPA  Xx4administration, and the TRS Fund.x~ {O 'ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 1932426.  XJ' B. Discussion  X 4L77. ` ` We do not propose to consolidate billing and collection functions for the universal service, TRS, NANP, and local number portability mechanisms, at this time. In reaching this conclusion, we believe that the record does not indicate that significant cost savings would be achieved by such a proposal. Indeed, a number of commenters, including administrators Lockheed and USAC, state that appointing a single agent for billing and collection functions would create complexity that might lead to increased costs for  X4administration.(Z~~ {O'ԍ See, e.g., Lockheed Comments at 56; USAC Comments at 56; MCI Reply Comments at 1, 6; USTA Comments at 4 (recommending that the Commission conduct a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the proposal would lower administrative costs).( Because it is not clear that greater efficiency and reliability would be achieved through a single billing and collection agent for these four mechanisms, we do not propose such an approach.  X64T VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ă  X' A.Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis   X4M78. ` ` As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Contributor  X4Reporting Requirements Notice invited the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in the Notice, in particular, the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. On December 9,  X41998, OMB approved the proposed information collection, as submitted to OMB.~ yO#'ԍ In its approval of the proposed worksheet, OMB requests that the Commission address several issues.  {O$'We respond to those concerns in this Order. See supra,  15 n.33 (concerning installment payments), 24 (concerning reporting by each legal entity), 3031 (concerning the September 1 universal service filing), 7576 (concerning single billing and collection agent), 7779 (concerning estimated burden, including burden on carriers that do not comply with USOA, and installment payments), App. C (concerning impact of the Order on small"&,N(N(&" entities and on alternatives considered). In this"%X,N(N(ZZ0" Report and Order, we adopt the proposed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, but modify our proposal to reflect comments received from OMB and other commenters. The revised Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet is subject to approval by OMB.  X4N79. ` ` As described above, the worksheet that we adopt in this Order reflects our efforts to collect the information necessary to implement the congressional directives, while  Xv4reducing to the lowest possible level the burden on carriers and service providers.xvX~ {O 'ԍ See Section III.B. (discussing data requested in the worksheet).x Indeed, the Commission has undertaken this proceeding to achieve the same deregulatory goals urged  XH4by commenters, such as GST, by consolidating multiple, existing reporting requirements. $H~ {O 'ԍ See, e.g., GST Comments at i, 5 (stating that the Commission should consider alternatives such as "consolidation of various reporting requirements"). For example, as GST suggests, we have adopted our proposal to allow carriers to request nondisclosure of confidential data by using a checkbox, rather than requiring them to  {O='make a separate initial filing under section 0.459. See Section III.H. (discussing various confidentiality issues).  We note, but do not find persuasive, GST's critique that the consolidated worksheet is designed solely for carriers having accounting systems akin to those mandated for dominant  X 4incumbent LECs.P ~ {O'ԍ See GST Comments at 78.P The revenue categories used in the worksheet correspond to major categories of service; accordingly, Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) account numbers are provided in the instructions as a convenience for those carriers that are familiar with the  X 4USOA account structure. Most other firms, e.g., smaller firms that do not employ the USOA, generally comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Moreover, we expect that, in general, carriers track the relative magnitudes of their major product offerings for internal management reporting and cost accounting purposes.  XM4O80. ` ` Based on our review of the information requested in the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, we revise upward, from six to eight hours per response, our estimate of the time required to complete the worksheet. While the worksheet that we adopt is more streamlined than the proposed worksheet released for comment, we believe that our revised burden estimate more accurately reflects the amount of time needed to identify and compile  X4the information requested.h ~ yO 'ԍ We estimate the burden to complete the shorter September filing to be 5.5 hours per respondent. This estimate is consistent with the burden estimates for completing existing worksheets, but reflects the streamlining measures that we adopt in this Order. For example, the burden of completing this worksheet (and thereby complying with the contributor reporting requirements) will be reduced by consolidating multiple filing dates and locations into one filing date and location, harmonizing the type of data used to calculate contributions, and eliminating worksheet sections that required filers to calculate their own contributions. The official burden estimate to complete the worksheet reflects an average response time that may vary for firms depending upon the number of services that they"9& ,N(N(ZZ_0" provide or the number of regions in which they provide service. Indeed, most firms will not need to provide data on all revenue categories, but will only report that small portion of the requested revenue data that is relevant to the services that they provide. We reiterate that the worksheet that we adopt in this Order seeks no additional data than that already request by the existing forms; this worksheet serves only to simplify and consolidate existing information collections. Finally, we note that the Commission has adopted and the instructions incorporate alternative, less burdensome approaches where it has been determined that  X_4supplying certain information is particularly burdensome for certain carriers._~ yO'ԍ For example, where it was demonstrated that wireless contributors could not readily derive interstate revenues from their books of account, the Commission adopted interim safe harbor percentages that should  {Oh 'greatly reduce burdens for wireless carriers. See FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98278, 13 FCC Rcd 21252 (rel. Oct. 26, 1998).  X1' B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis   X 4P81. ` ` As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),Z z~ {O.'ԍ See 5 U.S.C.  604. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq.#x6X@KX@##]\  PCɒP#, has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the  yO'CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).#x6X@KX@# the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules adopted in this Order. The FRFA is set forth as Appendix C. The Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, will send a copy of this Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  Xb4y> VII. CONCLUSION ă  X44Q82. ` ` We take several discrete actions in this proceeding to reduce burdens on regulated carriers and other providers of telecommunications services. By combining several required worksheets and filings into one unified Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, we expect to both reduce regulatory burden and confusion and to increase compliance by those smaller companies that are not aware of the Commission's requirements. We have identified this proceeding as part of the Commission's 1998 biennial regulatory review because of its focus on eliminating duplicative regulatory burdens.  X|4 VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES ׃  XN4R83. ` ` ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 11, 201205, 210, 214, 218, 225, 251, 254, 303(r), 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 161, 201205, 210, 214, 218, 225, 251, 254, 303(r), 332 and 403 that this ORDER is hereby ADOPTED." ',N(N(ZZ0"Ԍ X4ԙS84. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes set forth in Appendix B are hereby ADOPTED, effective thirty (30) days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. The information collection adopted herein is contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget, but, in any event, will not become effective before thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register.  Xv4T85. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this ORDER, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hhCSecretary "y(,N(N(ZZ0"  X4 ) g  APPENDIX A LIST OF COMMENTERS ă  X' Comments: American Public Communications Council (APCC) Ameritech Corporation (Ameritech) AT&T Corporation (AT&T) Bell Atlantic Corporation (Bell Atlantic) BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) Blooston, Mordkofsky, Jackson & Dickens (Blooston) Cellular Telecommunications Industry Assoc. (CTIA) GTE Service Corporation (GTE) GST Telecom Inc. (GST) IDT Corporation (IDT) Lockheed Martin IMS (Lockheed) MCI WorldCom, Inc. (MCI) MediaOne Group, Inc. (MediaOne) North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection Agent (NBANC) National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (OmniPoint) Personal Communications Industry Assoc. (PCIA) Rural Telephone Coalition (RTC) SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) Sprint Corporation (Sprint) STAR Telecommunications, Inc. (STAR) Telecommunications Resellers Assoc. (TRA) Ursus Telecom Corporation (Ursus) United States Cellular Corporation (USCC) United States Telephone Association (USTA) Universal Service Administrative Co. (USAC) USF Coalition U S West Communications, Inc. (U S West)  X ' Replies: Ameritech Bell Atlantic BellSouth Blooston Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (Loral) GTE MCI Qwest Communications Corporation, (Qwest) RSL Com USA, Inc./Delta Three (RSL Com) SBC":&),N(N(ZZO$0"  X4    APPENDIX B RULES AMENDED ă  X4 AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS ă  X4  PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ă  Xv41. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:  XH4AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 303(r).  X 42. Section 1.47(h) of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:  X '  1.47 ` ` Service of documents and proof of service. (h) Every common carrier subject to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, shall designate an agent in the District of Columbia, and may designate additional agents if it so chooses, upon whom service of all notices, process, orders, decisions, and requirements of the Commission may be made for and on behalf of said carrier in any proceeding before the Commission. Such designation shall include, for both the carrier and its designated agents, a name, business address, telephone or voicemail number, facsimile number, and, if available, Internet e-mail address. The carrier shall additionally list any other names by which it is known or under which it does business, and, if the carrier is an affiliated company, the parent, holding, or management company. Within thirty (30) days of the commencement of provision of service, each carrier shall file such information with the Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch of the Common Carrier Bureau. Carriers may file a hard copy of the relevant portion of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, as delineated by the Commission in the Federal Register, to satisfy this requirement. Each Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet filed annually by a common carrier must contain a name, business address, telephone or voicemail number, facsimile number, and, if available, Internet email address for its designated agents, regardless of whether such information has been revised since the previous filing. Carriers must notify the Commission within one week of any changes in their designation information by filing revised portions of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet with the Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch of the Common Carrier Bureau. A paper copy of this designation list shall be maintained in the Office of the Secretary of the Commission. Service of any notice, process, orders, decisions or requirements of the Commission may be made upon such carrier by leaving a copy thereof with such designated agent at his office or usual place of residence. If a carrier fails to designate such an agent, service of any notice or other process in any proceeding before the Commission, or of any order, decision, or requirement of the Commission, may be made by posting such notice, process, order, requirement, or decision in the Office of the Secretary of the Commission. ln* * * * *"%'*,N(N(ZZF%0"Ԍ X4ԙ|) v PART 52 NUMBERING ă Part 52 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows:  X41. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: v AUTHORITY: Sec. 1, 2 , 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154, 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 3, 4, 201205, 207209, 218, 2257, 2512, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201205, 20709, 218, 2257, 2512, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.  X 42.Section 52.16 of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:  X '  52.16` ` Billing and Collection Agent. The B & C Agent shall:  Xy4(a) Calculate, assess, bill and collect payments for numbering administration functions and distribute funds to NANPA on a monthly basis;  X44(b) Distribute to carriers the "Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet," described in Section 52.17(b).  X4 (c) Keep confidential all data obtained from carriers and not disclose such data in company-specific form unless authorized by the Commission. Subject to any restrictions imposed by the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau, the B & C Agent may share data obtained from carriers with the administrators of the universal service support mechanism (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 54.701), the TRS Fund (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.604(c)(4)(iii)(H)), and the local number portability cost recovery (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 52.32). The B & C Agent shall keep confidential all data obtained from other administrators. The B & C Agent shall use such data, from carriers or administrators, only for calculating, collecting and verifying payments. The Commission shall have access to all data reported to the Administrator. Contributors may make requests for Commission nondisclosure of company-specific revenue information under  0.459 of this Chapter by so indicating on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet at the time that the subject data are submitted. The Commission shall make all decisions regarding nondisclosure of company-specific information.  X!4(d)(f)* * * y* * *  XQ%43.Section 52.17 of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows: ":&+,N(N(ZZO$0"Ԍ X4 _ 52.17 ` ` Costs of number administration .  X4 All telecommunications carriers in the United States shall contribute on a competitively neutral basis to meet the costs of establishing numbering administration.  X4 (a) Contributions to support numbering administration shall be the product of the _contributors' enduser telecommunications revenues for the prior calendar year and a contribution factor determined annually by the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau; such contributions to be no less than twentyfive dollars ($25). The contribution factor shall be based on the ratio of expected number administration expenses to enduser telecommunications revenues. Carriers that have no enduser telecommunications revenues shall contribute twentyfive dollars ($25). In the event that contributions exceed or are inadequate to cover administrative costs, the contribution factor for the following year shall be adjusted by an appropriate amount.  X 4(b) All telecommunications carriers in the United States shall complete and submit a "Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet" (as published by the Commission in the Federal Register), which sets forth the information needed to calculate contributions referred to in subsection (a). The worksheet shall be certified to by an officer of the contributor, and subject to verification by the Commission or the B & C Agent at the discretion of the Commission. The Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau may waive, reduce, modify, or eliminate contributor reporting requirements that prove unnecessary and require additional reporting requirements that the Bureau deems necessary to the sound and efficient administration of the number administration cost recovery. y* * *  X4 4.Section 52.32 of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:  Xe'  52.32 ` ` Allocation of the shared costs of longterm number portability.  X74(a) * * *  X 4(b) All telecommunications carriers providing service in the United States shall complete and submit a "Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet" (as published by the Commission in the Federal Register), which sets forth the information needed to calculate contributions referred to in subsection (a). The worksheet shall be certified to by an officer of the contributor, and subject to verification by the Commission or the administrator at the discretion of the Commission. The Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau may waive, reduce, modify, or eliminate contributor reporting requirements that prove unnecessary and require additional reporting requirements that the Bureau deems necessary to the sound and efficient administration of longterm number portability. ":&,,N(N(ZZO$0"Ԍ X4 (c) Local number portability administrators shall keep all data obtained from contributors confidential and shall not disclose such data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission. Subject to any restrictions imposed by the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau, the local number portability administrators may share data obtained from carriers with the administrators of the universal service support mechanism (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 54.701), the TRS Fund (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.604(c)(4)(iii)(H)), and the North American Numbering Plan cost recovery (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 52.16). The local number portability administrators shall keep confidential all data obtained from other administrators. The administrators shall use such data, from carriers or administrators, only for purposes of administering local number portability. The Commission shall have access to all data reported to the Administrator. Contributors may make requests for Commission nondisclosure of company-specific revenue information under  0.459 of this Chapter by so indicating on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet at the time that the subject data are submitted. The Commission shall make all decisions regarding nondisclosure of company-specific information.  X4(d) Once a telecommunications carrier has been allocated, pursuant to subparagraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, its portion of the shared costs of longterm number portability attributable to a regional database, the carrier shall treat that portion as a carrierspecific cost directly related to providing number portability. ln* * * * *  X'_ PART 54 UNIVERSAL SERVICE ă Part 54 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  X|41.The authority citation for Part 54 continues to read as follows:  XN4 _ AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless otherwise noted.  X 42. Section 54.708 is amended to read as follows:  X'  54.708 ` ` De minimis exemption.  If a contributor's contribution to universal service in any given year is less than $10,000 that contributor will not be required to submit a contribution or Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet for that year unless it is required to do so to by our rules governing Telecommunications Relay Service (47 C.F.R.  64.601 et seq.), numbering administration (47 C.F.R.  52.1 et seq.), or shared costs of local number portability (47 C.F.R.  52.21 et seq.). If a contributor improperly claims exemption from the contribution requirement, it will subject to the criminal provisions of sections 220(d) and (e) of the Act regarding willful false submissions and will be required to pay the amounts withheld plus interest."#'-,N(N(ZZ%0"Ԍ X4ԙH3. Section 54.709 is amended to read as follows:  X'  54.709 ` ` Computations of required contributions to universal service support  X'mechanisms. (a) Contributions to the universal service support mechanisms shall be based on contributors' end-user telecommunications revenues and contribution factors determined quarterly by the HCommission.  X14(1) ` ` * * *  X 4(2) ` ` The quarterly universal service contribution factors shall be based on the ratio of total projected quarterly expenses of the universal service support programs to total end-user telecommunications revenues. The Commission shall determine two contribution factors, one of which shall be applied to interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues and the other of which shall be applied to interstate, intrastate, and international end-user telecommunications revenues. The Commission shall approve the Administrator's quarterly projected costs of universal service support programs, taking into account demand for support and administrative expenses. The total subject revenues shall be compiled by the Administrator based on information contained in the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets described in  54.711(a).  X4(3)(5) * * *  X4(b) * * *  X4(c) * * *  X|4(d) If a contributor fails to file a Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet by the date on which it is due, the Administrator shall bill that contributor based on whatever relevant data the Administrator has available, including, but not limited to, the number of lines presubscribed to the contributor and data from previous years, taking into consideration any estimated changes in such data.  X4v4. Section 54.711 is amended to read as follows:  X '  54.711 ` ` Contributor reporting requirements.  X"4(a) Contributions shall be calculated and filed in accordance with the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet which shall be published in the Federal Register. vThe Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet sets forth information that the contributor must submit to the Administrator on a semi-annual basis. The Commission shall announce by Public Notice published in the Federal Register and on its website the manner of payment and dates by which payments must be made. An officer of the contributor must certify to the"#'.,N(N(ZZ%0" truth and accuracy of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, and the Commission or the Administrator may verify any information contained in the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet at the discretion of the Commission. Inaccurate or untruthful information contained in the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet may lead to prosecution under the criminal provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code. The Administrator shall advise the Commission of any enforcement issues that arise and provide any suggested response.  X_4(b) The Commission shall have access to all data reported to the Administrator. Contributors may make requests for Commission nondisclosure of company-specific revenue information under  0.459 of this Chapter by so indicating on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet at the time that the subject data are submitted. The Commission shall make all decisions regarding nondisclosure of company-specific information. The Administrator shall keep confidential all data obtained from contributors, shall not use such data except for purposes of administering the universal service support programs, and shall not disclose such data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission. Subject to any restrictions imposed by the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau, the Universal Service Administrator may share data obtained from contributors with the administrators of the North American Numbering Plan administration cost recovery (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 52.16), the local number portability cost recovery (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 52.32), and the TRS Fund (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.604(c)(4)(iii)(H)). The Administrator shall keep confidential all data obtained from other administrators and shall not use such data except for purposes of administering the universal service support mechanisms.  X4(c) The Bureau may waive, reduce, modify, or eliminate contributor reporting requirements that prove unnecessary and require additional reporting requirements that the Bureau deems necessary to the sound and efficient administration of the universal service support mechanisms.  X|45. Section 54.713 is amended to read as follows:  XN'  54.713 ` ` Contributors' failure to report or to contribute. A contributor that fails to file a Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet and subsequently is billed by the Administrator shall pay the amount for which it is billed. The Administrator may bill a contributor a separate assessment for reasonable costs incurred because of that contributor's filing of an untruthful or inaccurate Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, failure to file the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, or late payment of contributions. Failure to file the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet or to submit required quarterly contributions may subject the contributor to the enforcement provisions of the Act and any other applicable law. The Administrator shall advise the Commission of any enforcement issues that arise and provide any suggested response. Once a contributor complies with the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet filing requirements, the Administrator may refund any overpayments made by the contributor, less any fees, interest, or costs. "#'/,N(N(ZZ%0"Ԍln* * * * *  X4_` PART 64 MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS ă Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R) is amended as follows:  Xv41.The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:  XH4_ AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2), (c), Public Law 104104, 110 Stat. 56, Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. secs. 201, 218, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted.  X 4_2.Section 64.604(c)(4)(iii) of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:  X '  64.604` ` Mandatory Minimum Standards  X4(a) * * *  Xb4_(b) * * * (c) Functional standards--  X4(i) ` ` * * *  X4(iii) ` ` * * * (iii) Telecommunications Relay Services Fund.  X|4` ` (1)  ***  XN4` ` (2)  ***  X 4` ` (3)  ***  X4` ` (4)  Jurisdictional Separation of Costs  X 4` `  (A) Contributions. Every carrier providing interstate telecommunications services shall contribute to the TRS Fund on the basis of its relative share of interstate enduser telecommunications revenues as described herein. Contributions shall be made by all carriers who provide interstate services, including, but not limited to, cellular telephone and paging, mobile radio, operator services, personal communications service (PCS), access (including subscriber line charges), alternative access and special access, packet-switched, WATS, 800, 900, message telephone service (MTS), private line, telex, telegraph, video, satellite, intraLATA, international and resale services."#'0,N(N(ZZ,%0"Ԍ X4ԙ` `  (B) Contribution computations. Contributors' contribution to the TRS Fund shall be the product of their subject revenues for the prior calendar year and a contribution factor determined annually by the Commission. The contribution factor shall be based on the ratio between expected TRS Fund expenses to interstate enduser telecommunications revenues. In the event that contributions exceed TRS payments and administrative costs, the contribution factor for the following year will be adjusted by an appropriate amount, taking into consideration projected cost and usage changes. In the event that contributions are inadequate, the fund administrator may request authority from the Commission to borrow funds commercially, with such debt secured by future years contributions. Each subject carrier must contribute at least $25 per year. Carriers whose annual contributions total less than $1,200 must pay the entire contribution at the beginning of the contribution period. Carriers whose contributions total $1,200 or more may divide their contributions into equal monthly payments. Carriers shall complete and submit, and contributions shall be based on, a "Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet" (as published by the Commission in the Federal Register). The worksheet shall be certified to by an officer of the contributor, and subject to verification by the Commission or the administrator at the discretion of the Commission. Contributors' statements in the worksheet shall be subject to the provisions of section 220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The fund administrator may bill contributors a separate assessment for reasonable administrative expenses and interest resulting from improper filing or overdue contributions. The Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau may waive, reduce, modify, or eliminate contributor reporting requirements that prove unnecessary and require additional reporting requirements that the Bureau deems necessary to the sound and efficient administration of the TRS Fund.  X4` `  (C) (H) hhC* * * ` `  (I) Information filed with the administrator. The administrator shall keep all data obtained from contributors and TRS providers confidential and shall not disclose such data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission. Subject to any restrictions imposed by the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau, the TRS Fund administrator may share data obtained from carriers with the administrators of the universal service support mechanisms (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 54.701), the North American Numbering Plan administration cost recovery (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 52.16), and the longterm local number portability cost recovery (See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 52.32). The TRS Fund Administrator shall keep confidential all data obtained from other administrators. The administrator shall not use such data, from carriers or administrators, except for purposes of administering the TRS Fund, calculating the regulatory fees of interstate common carriers, and aggregating such fee payments for submission to the Commission. The Commission shall have access to all data reported to the administrator, and authority to audit TRS providers. Contributors may make requests for Commission nondisclosure of company-specific revenue information under  0.459 of this Chapter by so indicating on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet at the time that the subject data are submitted. The Commission shall make all decisions regarding nondisclosure of company-specific information. "#'1,N(N(ZZ%0"Ԍ X4` `  (J) * * *  X4` `  (K) * * *  X4` ` (5)  * * * ln* * * * *"v2,N(N(ZZ.0"  X4Բ  z APPENDIX C FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS ă  X4 A. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)U A. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1. ` ` In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),Z~ {OK'ԍ See 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq.#x6X@KX@##]\  PCɒP#, has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the  yO'CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).#x6X@KX@# an Initial Regulatory  X4Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Contributor Reporting Requirements  X4Notice. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are discussed below. This present  Xz4Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.Nz~ {O 'ԍ See 5 U.S.C.  604.N  XL4 I. XNeed for, and Objectives of, the Contributor Reporting Requirements Order: (#  X 42. ` ` The Commission undertakes this examination of its contributor reporting  X 4requirements |~ {O5'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  64.601 et seq.; 47 C.F.R.  54.1 et seq.; 47 C.F.R.  52.1 et seq.; 47 C.F.R.   {O'52.21 et seq. as a part of its 1998 biennial review of regulations as required by section 11 of  X 4the Communications Act, as amended.E ~ yOz'ԍ 47 U.S.C.  161.E This Order simplifies the Commission's filing requirements by consolidating several different forms currently filed under our existing rules  X 4associated with the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund,X h ~ {O'ԍ47 C.F.R.  64.601 et seq.X federal universal service  X 4support mechanisms,j ~ {OW'ԍ47 C.F.R.  54.1 et seq., 69.1 et seq.j the cost recovery mechanism for the North American Numbering Plan  X4(NANP) administration,V ~ {O'ԍ47 C.F.R.  52.1 et seq.V and the cost recovery mechanism for longterm local number  X~4portability (LNP) administration.W~~ {OM'ԍ47 C.F.R.  52.21 et seq.W This Order also establishes enduser telecommunications revenues as the basis for contributions to the NANP and TRS mechanisms making consistent the revenue bases for all four support and cost recovery mechanisms. Our objective is to reduce or eliminate unnecessary or duplicative regulatory requirements, consistent with  X"4section 11 of the Act,E "~ yO$'ԍ 47 U.S.C.  161.E and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.j \"@~ {O'ԍ Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996 Act), codified at 47 U.S.C.  {OZ' 151 et seq. See Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, S. Conf. Rep. No. 230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 113 (1996) (Joint Explanatory Statement).j""3 ,N(N(ZZs0"Ԍ X'ԙ II. X Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the  X'IRFA (#  X43. ` ` Only one party filed comments addressing the Commission's compliance with  X4the RFA,O ~ {OA 'ԍ See GST Comments at 15.O but many parties commented on the Commission's proposals to streamline the Commission's reporting requirements. As noted above, the record provided by all of these commenting parties clearly supports the Commission's efforts to reduce the amount of  X_4paperwork required by the current contributor reporting requirements.x _~~ {O 'ԍ See Section III.B. (discussing use of a consolidated worksheet).x Consistent with those comments, this Order reduces significantly the amount of paperwork required of telecommunications carriers.  X 44. ` ` In comments to the Notice, GST argues that the proposed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet is particularly burdensome for small carriers because it assumes that  X 4small carriers have developed sophisticated accounting infrastructure.U ~ {O'ԍ See GST Comments at 7, 9, 15.U We disagree with GST's assessment and note that the worksheet provides flexibility for carriers that do not have sophisticated accounting systems. In contrast to GST's portrayal, the categories of revenue sought in the worksheet correspond to major categories of service, reflecting our expectation that most carriers track the relative magnitudes of their major product offerings for internal management reporting and cost accounting purposes. GST offers no evidence to the contrary. The worksheet collects the minimum amount of information necessary to ensure that individual carriers and segments of the industry are contributing on a fair and equitable basis. Further, the worksheet and its instructions incorporate alternative, less burdensome approaches where it has been determined that supplying certain information is particularly burdensome for certain carriers. Thus, for example, the worksheet permits carriers to use good faith estimates to determine interstate and international revenues where these figures cannot be directly determined from corporate books of account or subsidiary records. Similarly, we adopt a streamlined version of the worksheet to satisfy the September universal service filing and to reduce costs for carriers.  Xe45. ` ` While not in direct response to the IRFA, both NECA and Blooston encourage the Commission not to implement an electronic filing system that would require costly  X74investments by small carriers.c7~ yO&'ԍ NECA Comments at 4; Blooston Reply Comments at 9.c We agree that proposals for electronic filing of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet should not require expensive startup costs for" 42 ,N(N(ZZ<0" filers, so that all carriers, including small entities, should be able to utilize a more efficient  X4system.j~ {Ob'ԍ See Section III.I. (discussing electronic filing).j  X' IV. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules  X'Will Apply:  Xv46. ` ` The Commission's contributor reporting requirements apply to a wide range of entities, including all telecommunications carriers and other providers of interstate  XH4telecommunications that offer telecommunications for a fee.zHZ~ yOS 'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  52.17 (applying to all telecommunications carriers), 52.32 (applying to all telecommunications carriers), 54.703 (applying to every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services, every provider of interstate telecommunications that offers telecommunications for a fee on a noncommon carrier basis, and certain payphone providers), 64.604(c)(4)(iii)(A) (applying to every carrier providing interstate telecommunications services). We note that the Commission's rules for universal  {O;'service exempt certain small contributors, i.e., contributors that have revenue below a stated threshold. 47 C.F.R.  54.705. Thus, we expect that the rules adopted in this Order will have a positive economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on the number of carriers that file the existing forms and this Order does not increase the number of entities that must comply with these requirements we predict that not more than 5,000 entities, total, will file the worksheet. Of those 5,000 potential filers, we do not know how many are small entities, but we offer below a detailed estimate of the number of small entities within each of several major carriertype categories. We state, again, that the economic impact of these proposals is, of course, a positive and beneficial impact, in the form of reduced regulatory burdens and recordkeeping requirements, for these entities.  XK47.` ` To estimate the number of small entities that would benefit from this positive economic impact, we first consider the statutory definition of "small entity" under the RFA. The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the term "small  X4business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."G~ yOS'ԍ 5 U.S.C.  601(6).G 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  X4appropriate to its activities.,, ~ yO"'ԍ 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition in the Federal Register." , 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"5,N(N(ZZ0" operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business  X4Administration (SBA).~ {Ob'ԍ 15 U.S.C.  632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc. v. Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82 (N.D.Ga. 1994). The SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more than  X41,500 employees.I"~ yOw'ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201.I We first discuss the number of small telephone companies falling within these SIC categories, then attempt to refine further those estimates to correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly used under our rules.  XH48.` ` The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the numbers of commercial  X 4wireless entities, appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report, derived from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service  X 4(TRS). ~ {OQ'ԍ FCC, Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers, Figure 1 (Jan. 1999) (Carrier Locator). See also 47  {O'C.F.R.  64.601 et seq. According to data in the most recent report, there are 3,604 interstate carriers.R ~ {O'ԍ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1.R  X 4These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service  X 4providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay  X 4telephone operators , providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange  X4service, and resellers.  Xf49.` ` Although some affected incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) may have 1,500 or fewer employees, we do not believe that such entities should be considered small entities within the meaning of the RFA because they are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, and therefore by definition not "small entities" or "small business concerns" under the RFA. Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities" and "small businesses" does not encompass small ILECs. Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will separately consider small ILECs within this analysis and use the term "small ILECs" to refer to any  X4ILECs that arguably might be defined by the SBA as "small business concerns."~ {O!'ԍ See 13 C.F.R. 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 4813. Since the time of the  {O"'Commission's 1996 decision, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act  {O#'of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 1614445 (1996), 61 FR 45476 (August 29, 1996), the Commission has consistently addressed in its regulatory flexibility analyses the impact of its rules on such ILECs. "6V ,N(N(ZZ0"Ԍ X4 10.` ` Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected.  The United States Bureau of the Census ("the Census Bureau") reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms  X4engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year.~ {OM'ԍUnited States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation,  yO'Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size1-123 (1995) ("1992 Census"). This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not "independently owned  XJ4and operated."KJ"~ yO 'ԍ 15 U.S.C.  632(a)(1).K For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order.  X 4 11.` ` Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports that, there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for  X}4at least one year at the end of 1992._}~ {O'ԍ 1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size1-123._ According to SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than  XO41,500 persons.ZOD~ yOD'ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC Code 4813. Z All but 26 of the 2,321 nonradiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 nonradiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order.  XR4 12.` ` Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Competitive Access  X=4Providers, Operator Service Providers, and Resellers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small local exchange carriers (LECs), interexchange carriers (IXCs), competitive access providers (CAPs), operator service providers (OSPs), or resellers. The closest applicable definition for these carriertypes under SBA rules is for telephone"7,N(N(ZZ0"  X4communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.X~ yOy'ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.210, SIC Code 4813.X The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the  X4Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).X~ {O'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  64.601 et seq.; Carrier Locator at Fig. 1. According to our most recent data, there are  X41,410 LECs, 151 IXCs, 129 CAPs, 32 OSPs, and 351 resellers.~ {O? 'ԍ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1. The total for resellers includes both toll resellers and local resellers. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,410 small entity LECs or small incumbent LECs, 151 IXCs, 129 CAPs, 32 OSPs, and 351 resellers that may be affected by the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order.  X 4 13.` ` Wireless (Radiotelephone) Carriers. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were  X 41,176 such companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. |~ {O'ԍ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation,  yO'Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size1-123 (1995) ("1992 Census"). According to SBA's definition, a small business radiotelephone company is one employing no more than  X41,500 persons.Z ~ yO'ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC Code 4812. Z The Census Bureau also reported that 1,164 of those radiotelephone companies had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all of the remaining 12 companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 1,164 radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities if they are independently owned are operated. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of radiotelephone carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,164 small entity radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order.   X4 14.` ` Cellular, PCS, SMR and Other Mobile Service Providers. In an effort to further refine our calculation of the number of radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the rules adopted herein, we consider the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS for the subcategories Wireless Telephony (which includes Cellular, PCS, and SMR) and Other Mobile Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to these broad subcategories, so we will utilize the closest applicable definition under SBA rules which, for both categories, is for"$8f ,N(N(ZZc0"  X4telephone companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.;!~ {Oy'ԍ Id.; To the extent that the Commission has adopted definitions for small entities providing PCS and SMR services, we discuss those definitions below. According to our most recent TRS data, 732 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of Wireless Telephony services and 23  X4companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of Other Mobile Services.R"Z~ {O'ԍ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1.R Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of Wireless Telephony Providers and Other Mobile Service Providers, except as described below, that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 732 small entity Wireless Telephony Providers and fewer than 23 small entity Other Mobile Service Providers that might be affected by the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order.  X 415.` ` Broadband PCS Licensees. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined "small entity" for Blocks C and F as an entity that has  X4average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years.#^~ {O/'ԍ See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding  {O'and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, FCC 96278, WT Docket No. 96 {O'59,  5760 (June 24, 1996), 61 FR 33859 (July 1, 1996); see also 47 C.F.R.  24.720(b). For Block F, an additional classification for "very small business" was added, and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15  XM4million for the preceding three calendar years.H$M~ {O'ԍ Id., at  60.H These regulations defining "small entity" in  X64the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by SBA.%6~ {O'ԍ Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93253, Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 558184 (1994). No small businesses within the SBAapproved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. However, licenses for Blocks C through F have not been awarded fully, therefore there are few, if any, small businesses currently providing PCS services. Based on this information, we estimate that the number of small broadband PCS licenses will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 small PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commissioner's auction rules. "P9 %,N(N(ZZ0"Ԍ X416.` ` SMR Licensees.  Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  90.814(b)(1), the Commission has defined "small entity" in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses as a firm that had average annual gross revenues of less than $15 million in the three previous calendar years. The definition of a "small entity" in the context of 800 MHz SMR has been  X4approved by the SBA,&~ {O'ԍ See Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896901 MHz and the 935940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized  {O'Mobile Radio Pool, PR Docket No. 89583, Second Order on Reconsideration and Seventh Report and Order, 11  {O{'FCC Rcd 2639, 2693702 (1995); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future  {OE 'Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93144, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995). and approval for the 900 MHz SMR definition has been sought. The rules proposed in this FRFA may apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of less than $15 million. We assume, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the extended implementation authorizations may be held by small entities, that may be affected by the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order.   X 417.` ` The Commission recently held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. There were 60 winning bidders who qualified as small entities in the 900 MHz auction. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of geographic area SMR licensees that may be affected by the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order includes these 60 small entities. No auctions have been held for 800 MHz geographic area SMR licenses. Therefore, no small entities currently hold these licenses. A total of 525 licenses will be awarded for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. The Commission, however, has not yet determined how many licenses will be awarded for the lower 230 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. There is no basis, moreover, on which to estimate how many small entities will win these licenses. Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,000 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number of prospective 800 MHz licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the licenses may be awarded to small entities who may be affected by the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order.  X~418. ` ` 220 MHz Radio Service Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both PhaseI and PhaseII licenses. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHZ Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, we apply the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone" :H&,N(N(ZZ0"  X4Communications companies.'~ yOy'ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC Code 4812. This definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau of the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more  X4employees.*(  ~ yO'ԍ U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, UC92-S-1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms; 1992, SIC code 4812 (issued May 1995). * Therefore, if this general ratio continues to 1999 in the context of PhaseI 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's definition.  Xv419. ` ` 220 MHz Radio Service PhaseII Licensees. The PhaseII 220 MHz service  Xa4is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and  XL4Order we adopted criteria for defining small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and  X 4installment payments.K)Z ~ yO'ԍ 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70, at paras. 291- 295 (1997). The SBA  {O'has approved these definitions. See Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to D. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6, 1998).K We have defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not  X 4more than $3 million for the preceding three years.t* * ~ yO'ԍ 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11068-69, para. 291.t An auction of Phase II licenses  X 4commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.+Z ~ {O'ԍ See generally Public Notice, "220 MHz Service Auction Closes," Report No. WT 98-36 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. Oct. 23, 1998). 908 licenses were auctioned in 3 different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Companies claiming small business status won: one of the Nationwide licenses, 67% of the Regional licenses, and 54% of the EA licenses. As of January 22, 1999, the Commission announced that it was prepared to grant 654 of the Phase  X#4II licenses won at auction.P,X#~ yO#'ԍ Public Notice, "FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II 220 MHz Licenses After final Payment is Made," Report No. AUC18H, DA No. 99229 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. Jan. 22, 1999). A reauction of the remaining, unsold licenses is likely to take place during calendar year 1999.P " ;,,N(N(ZZ0"Ԍ X420.` ` Paging. The Commission has proposed a twotier definition of small businesses in the context of auctioning licenses in the Common Carrier Paging and exclusive  X4Private Carrier Paging services.-~ {OM'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  20.9(a)(1) (noting that private paging services may be treated as common carriage services). Under the proposal, a small business will be defined as either (1) an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $3 million, or (2) an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of not more than $15 million. Because the SBA has not yet approved this definition for paging services, we will utilize the SBA's definition applicable to  XJ4radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.X.J"~ yO 'ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC Code 4812.X At present, there are approximately 24,000 Private Paging licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging  X 4licenses. According to the most recent Carrier Locator data, 137 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or messaging services, which are placed  X 4together in the data.R/ ~ {OU'ԍ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1.R We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of paging carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 137 small paging carriers that may be affected by the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order. We estimate that the majority of private and common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  X:421.` ` Narrowband PCS. The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional licenses for narrowband PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30 regional licensees for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have sufficient information to determine whether any of these licensees are small businesses within the SBAapproved definition for radiotelephone companies. At present, there have been no auctions held for the major trading area (MTA) and basic trading area (BTA) narrowband PCS licenses. The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licenses and 2,958 BTA licenses will be awarded by auction. Such auctions have not yet been scheduled, however. Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have no more than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.  X422.` ` Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of  X4small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service.0D~ yO&'ԍ The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.99. A significant subset of the Rural"<0,N(N(ZZ0"  X4Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS).1~ yOy'ԍ BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.757, 22.759. We will  X4use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no  X4more than 1,500 persons.Y2 ~ yO'ԍ13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC Code 4812. Y There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA's definition.  Xx423.` ` AirGround Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a  Xc4definition of small entity specific to the AirGround Radiotelephone Service.3c~ yO 'ԍ The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.99. Accordingly,  XL4we will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity  X74employing no more than 1,500 persons.X47@~ yO('ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC Code 4812.X There are approximately 100 licensees in the AirGround Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  X 424.` ` Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR). PLMR systems serve an essential role in  X 4a range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities.5 ~ {OG'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  20.9(a)(2) (noting that certain Industrial/Business Pool service may be treated as common carriage service). These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to PLMR licensees due to the vast array of PLMR users. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee is a small business as defined by the SBA, each licensee would need to be evaluated within its own business area.  X%425.` ` The Commission is unable at this time to estimate the number of, if any, small businesses which could be impacted by the rules. However, the Commission's 1994 Annual  X4Report on PLMRs6* ~ {O 'ԍ Federal Communications Commission, 60th Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1994, at 116. indicates that at the end of fiscal year 1994 there were 1,087,267 licensees operating 12,481,989 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. Because any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license, the proposed rules in this context could potentially impact every small business in the United States. "= 6,N(N(ZZ90"Ԍ X4 26.` ` Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier,7~ {Oy'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  101 et seq. (formerly, Part 21 of the Commission's rules).  X4private-operational fixed,8"Z~ yO'ԍ Persons eligible under Parts 80 and 90 of the Commission's rules can use Private OperationalFixed  {O'Microwave services. See 47 C.F.R. Parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called operationalfixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operationalfixed station, and only for communications related to the licensee's commercial, industrial, or safety operations. and broadcast auxiliary radio services.Y9D~ {O'ԍ Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission's Rules. See 47  {O 'C.F.R.  74 et seq. Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay signals from a remote location back to the studio. Y At present, there are  approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. For purposes of this FRFA, we will utilize the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone  X4companies i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons.X: ~ yO8'ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC Code 4812.X We estimate, for this purpose, that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition for radiotelephone companies.  X5427.` ` Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several UHF TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states  X 4bordering the Gulf of Mexico.; ~ {OB'ԍ This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. See 47 C.F.R. 22.1001-22.1037. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. We are unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small entities under the SBA's definition for radiotelephone communications.  X 428.` ` Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radio location and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined "small business" for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a "very small business" as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as very small business entities, and one that qualified as a small business entity. We conclude that the number of geographic area WCS licensees that may be affected by the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order includes these eight entities. ">;,N(N(ZZ10"Ԍ X' vIV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance  X'Requirements:  X429. ` ` The decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order will reduce the reporting and recordkeeping requirements on telecommunications service providers regulated under the vCommunications Act. As currently structured, telecommunications carriers and other service providers having interstate revenues are required to file, at different times throughout the year, a number of contributor reporting worksheets that often reflect duplicative reporting requirements. In this Order, the Commission reduces these regulatory burdens by combining the multiple worksheets into one unified Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. In addition, the Commission further reduces carrier filing burdens by allowing carriers to use the proposed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to designate agents for service of process  X 4pursuant to section 413 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.D< ~ yOe 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  413.D We expect that, by adopting these proposals, telecommunications service providers will experience an appreciable reduction in reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance burdens.  X' V. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and  Xy'Significant Alternatives Considered:  XK430. ` ` In the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission sought comment on ways to simplify its contributor reporting requirements and, in particular, whether  X4a unified worksheet would reduce regulatory and administrative burden on reporting carriers.=X~ {O('ԍ See Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 19295, 19304. Commenters were nearly unanimous in their support of the Commission's proposals in the Notice. In response to numerous proposals to modify the data collected in the worksheet, the Commission developed the final Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet so that it will collect the minimum information necessary to ensure the equitable and efficient funding of the  X4support and cost recovery mechanisms.>~ yOG'ԍ See Section III. B. (discussing the use of a consolidated worksheet), III.D.2.b. (discussing the September universal service filing). Accordingly, we conclude that the impact of this proceeding should be beneficial to small businesses because the decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order will reduce the reporting or recordkeeping requirements on all communications common carriers.  X94Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Contributor Reporting  X$4Requirements Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the  X4Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.W?B~ {O&'ԍ See 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).W In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the"??,N(N(ZZ0" Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will  X4also be published in the Federal Register.Q@~ {Ob'ԍ See 5 U.S.C.  604(b).Q "@Z@,N(N(ZZ0"  X4  u APPENDIX D TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTING WORKSHEET ă  X4V April Version: FCC Form 499A ă"A@,))ZZ0"    X4|  September Version: FCC Form 499S ă"B@,))ZZ0"  &=   a4 #[\  P _P#Statement of Commissioner Harold W. FurchtgottRoth# XN\  PynXP# \  X4Re:` ` 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Streamlined Contributor Reporting Requirements Associated with Administration of Telecommunications Relay Services, North American Numbering Plan, Local Number Portability, and Universal Service Support Mechanisms (CC Docket No. 98171)x` I support adoption of this Report and Order wherein, pursuant to the Commissions duty under Section 11(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sect. 161(b), we have simplified the Commission's filing requirements for communications service providers. The regulations at issue here were chosen for repeal or modification as part of the Commissions 1998 Biennial Review, which was conducted pursuant to Section 11(a) of the  X 4Act, Id. at Sect. 161(a). However, as thoroughly described in my Report on Implementation  X4of Section 11 by the Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 21, 1998), which can be found on the FCC WWW site at , I believe that the 1998 Section 11(a) review was not as thorough as it should have been. I look forward to working with the chairman and other commissioners on the 2000 Biennial Review, planning for which should begin very soon.  X' Y* * * * * * * &=