Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- ) Streamlined Contributor Reporting ) CC Docket No. 98-171 Requirements Associated with Administration) of Telecommunications Relay Services, North) American Numbering Plan, Local Number) Portability, and Universal Service Support) Mechanisms ) ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: July 14, 1999 Released: July 14, 1999 By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a statement. Table of Contents Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 III. STREAMLINING CONTRIBUTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. . . . . 8 A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. Use of a Consolidated Reporting Worksheet. . . . . . 9 C. Changes to the Content of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet 14 D. Timing Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 E. Filing Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 F. Procedures for Future Changes to the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 G. Information Sharing and Delegation of Data Entry Functions Between Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 H. Additional Confidentiality Issues. . . . . . . . . . 48 I. Electronic Filing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 IV. CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRS AND NANPA MECHANISMS . . . . . . . . 55 A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 B. Basis for Assessing Contributions. . . . . . . . . . 57 C. Minimum and Fixed Annual Contributions to TRS and NANPA Mechanisms 71 V. BILLING AND COLLECTION FUNCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 A. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis . . . . . . . 78 B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. . . . . . 81 VII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Appendix A: List of Commenters Appendix B: Rules Amended Appendix C: Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Appendix D: Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet I. INTRODUCTION A. In this Report and Order, we simplify the Commission's filing requirements for communications service providers by replacing several different -- but largely duplicative -- forms with one consolidated form, the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. These forms are currently filed at different times and in multiple locations. At present, telecommunications carriers and certain telecommunications service providers must comply with separate reporting requirements for their contributions to finance interstate Telecommunications Relay Services Fund, federal universal service support mechanisms, administration of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), and the shared costs of long-term local number portability. In each case, a "worksheet" was created to enable the administrators, and in some cases, carriers, to calculate contributions to these mechanisms. We act here to harmonize these multiple contributor reporting requirements and to minimize the administrative burdens for carriers and service providers. Thus, in lieu of making four separate filings in the spring of 2000, reporting carriers will simply file one copy of the new worksheet on April 1, 2000. We emphasize that we are not imposing new reporting requirements in this proceeding; rather, our goal is to simplify the requirements to the greatest extent possible while continuing to ensure the efficient administration of the support and cost recovery mechanisms. 1. In addition to adopting the consolidated Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, we make several other modifications designed to rationalize our requirements and to reduce carrier confusion. In particular, we take the following measures: 1) adopt a uniform schedule and a single filing location for the contribution data; 2) encourage electronic filing of worksheets; 3) alter the revenue basis for assessing contributions to the TRS Fund and the NANP administration cost recovery mechanism to be consistent with the basis used for contributions to the universal service and local number portability mechanisms; and 4) reduce the minimum contribution requirements of the TRS Fund and the NANP administration cost recovery mechanism. We also reduce carrier filing burdens by adopting our proposal to allow carriers to use the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to designate agents for service of process pursuant to section 413 of the Communications Act. These modifications will facilitate the use of a consolidated reporting process and simplify the burdens on carriers and service providers. At the same time, these changes will not significantly shift the burden of contribution from one segment of the industry to another. 2. We also take steps to improve coordination between, and reduce the costs of, the administrators performing these data collection functions. For instance, we authorize administrators to share contributor data in certain circumstances. To simplify the reporting process and to reduce administrative costs, we also grant the administrators flexibility to develop procedures for collecting, validating, and distributing the data provided on the new worksheet. As a result, carriers will benefit because it will enable them to file only one copy of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, rather than filing a copy with multiple administrators. Moreover, the administrators that handle contributions for each financing mechanism will no longer need to perform redundant tasks. Finally, to facilitate the many administrative changes that are required to produce the worksheets each year, we delegate authority to the Common Carrier Bureau to make future changes to the proposed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. 3. The actions that we take in this Order to eliminate duplicative requirements are consistent with our overall effort to reduce unnecessary regulation. Our actions are also consistent with our statutory obligation, as part of our biennial review of our regulations, to eliminate or modify regulations that are no longer necessary in the public interest. Adopting a single worksheet not only will reduce regulatory burdens on carriers and service providers, but will also reduce the costs to administrators and the public costs of regulation by conserving Commission resources associated with auditing and cross-checking data submissions. 4. We note that, with the limited exceptions noted above, we do not revisit the substantive requirements of the support and cost recovery mechanisms, the class of contributors to each mechanism, or the services whose revenues are included in contribution bases. Rather, the rulemaking focuses on steps to reduce burdens on contributors, and burdens on the administrators that handle the contributions, by improving the data collection process. In order to achieve these results quickly, we defer consideration of several issues raised by commenters in this proceeding to other proceedings, including the underlying proceedings which the Commission has used to establish particular substantive requirements. II. BACKGROUND 5. In a series of separate proceedings, the Commission has established procedures to finance interstate telecommunications relay services, universal service support mechanisms, administration of the North American Numbering Plan, and shared costs of local number portability. To accomplish each of these goals, contributions are collected from telecommunications carriers and certain other providers of telecommunications services. As currently structured, our rules require telecommunications carriers having interstate revenues to file, at different times throughout the year, a number of contributor reporting worksheets that reflect often duplicative reporting requirements. Such carriers must file four forms (Form 431, TRS Fund Worksheet; Form 457, Universal Service Worksheet; Form 496, NANPA Funding Worksheet; and Form 487, LNP Worksheet) containing revenue and other data on which contributions to support or cost recovery mechanisms are based. For each of these forms, with the exception of the Universal Service Worksheet, carriers seeking confidential treatment of the data submitted in these forms must also file separate requests for nondisclosure with the Commission. In addition to these contributor reporting requirements, all carriers must also file data concerning contact information for an agent for service of process located in the District of Columbia. 6. On September 25, 1998, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry to initiate this proceeding. The Commission, in the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, tentatively concluded that, as currently structured, the contributor reporting requirements may place unnecessary administrative, compliance, and recordkeeping burdens on reporting carriers. The Commission sought comment on ways to streamline the filing requirements associated with the support and cost recovery mechanisms required under the Communications Act. In an attached Notice of Inquiry, the Commission sought comment on additional steps that it might take to simplify the administration of these mechanisms, including the adoption of a single agent to conduct all billing and collection functions. Twenty-eight parties filed comments and ten parties filed reply comments to the Notice. III. STREAMLINING CONTRIBUTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A. Overview 7. In this Order, we establish one consolidated data collection worksheet to be used to provide data necessary to determine carrier contribution amounts to the TRS, NANP, universal service, and LNP administrators. We present below, a table outlining the key aspects of the filings for the support and cost recovery mechanisms, comparing the existing practice with the modifications adopted in this Order. In subsequent portions of Section III, we make various changes to the rules governing contributions to TRS, NANP, universal service, and local number portability in order to facilitate use of the unified data collection worksheet. Mechanism Previous New Universal Service - Form 457 - Filed March 31 and Sept. 1 - Filed with USAC - Reports end-user revenue & revenue from other contributors - Form 499 - Filed April 1* - Filed in one location - Reports end-user revenue & revenue from other contributors TRS - Form 431 - Filed April 26 - Filed with TRS Administrator - Reports gross telecommunications revenues NANPA - Form 496 - Filed March 12 - Filed with NANP B&C Agent - Reports gross telecommunications revenues & selected expense data Local Number Portability - Form 487 - Filed April 16 - Filed with LNP administrator - Reports end-user telecommunications revenue and revenue from other contributors * Contributors to universal service support mechanisms also file on September 1. B. Use of a Consolidated Reporting Worksheet 1. Background 8. In the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission proposed to consolidate collection of contribution data for the universal service support mechanism, the TRS Fund, and the cost recovery mechanisms for NANP and LNP administrations and attached a proposed "Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet" for comment. The Commission asked commenters, alternatively, whether any of the cost recovery mechanisms would be better served were it to continue collecting information through separate forms. 2. Discussion 9. We adopt a new Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to replace the four existing worksheets used to collect contributor data. The new worksheet will also be used by carriers to identify agents for service of process, as required by section 413 of the Act. We note that carriers and administrators were nearly unanimous in their support of this proposal. The record indicates that consolidating the four existing contributor forms into one worksheet will result in tangible administrative savings for carriers and service providers. We also conclude that adopting one worksheet to satisfy these obligations will reduce confusion for carriers and should increase compliance, particularly by smaller carriers. Finally, we believe that adopting a consolidated worksheet and granting administrators the ability to share revenue data will reduce the costs for administrators and, thereby, further effect savings overall. 10. To consolidate the worksheets, we amend the corresponding sections of the Commission's rules for universal service, TRS, local number portability, and numbering administration, so that those rule sections now refer to the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. To the same end, we also amend our rules concerning agents for service of process in section 1.47 to provide for the use of the worksheet. We attach, as Appendix D, the initial Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet (including both the April and the streamlined September versions) that will be used for the September 1, 1999 filing, as discussed below. In designing the new Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, we revise our proposed worksheet to reflect a more streamlined approach and to correct some minor inconsistencies. 11. The new Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet will provide the necessary information while reducing to the lowest possible level the burden for carriers and service providers. We disagree with those commenters that state that the new worksheet would collect an unnecessary level of revenue detail. Collecting revenue information by service type -- in addition to the specific revenue totals used to calculate individual contributions -- is vital to our ability to ensure that individual carriers and segments of the industry are contributing on a fair and equitable basis. Further, the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet does not seek any additional revenue detail beyond the level that is already collected from these same carriers under the existing reporting requirements. More importantly, obtaining this revenue data enables the Commission and the administrators to identify potential mistakes and abuse -- both in terms of misreported data and non-filers. Thus, this information is essential to ensuring that individual carriers and industry segments contribute to the mechanisms in a fair and equitable manner, and, thereby, to ensuring the integrity of the mechanisms. To that end, we believe that gathering detailed revenue information and publishing summaries of revenue data by service type creates public confidence that all carriers are participating, by allowing the public to scrutinize the level of participation within particular markets. Finally, we conclude that the specific revenue categories serve to clarify the instructions, by making more explicit the appropriate classification of particular services. All of these considerations lead us to conclude that both contributors and the public will benefit greatly from the reporting of revenue data by service type. 12. We do not adopt, however, the Commission's proposal to use the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to collect revenue and plant data required under section 43.21(c) of the Commission's rules. While some carriers might gain an incremental benefit from being able to satisfy this requirement through the consolidated worksheet, the section 43.21(c) data is not essential, at this time, for the administrators to perform their functions. C. Changes to the Content of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet 1. Including Contribution Factors in the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet a. Background 13. The proposed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, as attached to the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, included blocks to be used by carriers to calculate their contributions to the TRS, NANP, and local number portability support and cost recovery mechanisms. The instructions to the proposed worksheet indicated that carriers should submit their contribution to the relevant administrator at the same time that they filed the proposed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. The Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice reflected past practice for the TRS and NANP mechanisms, where contributors calculated their contributions and submitted payments (or first installments) at the same time that they completed and submitted the worksheets to the relevant administrator. The Commission, in the Notice, did not propose any changes to the current practice for administration of the universal service mechanisms -- where the administrator calculates individual contributions and bills contributors after receiving revenue data from filers. 14. In the 1999 NANP Funding Worksheet Notice, the Bureau altered the procedures for NANP administration so that carriers no longer submit their payment at the same time that the NANPA Worksheet is submitted. Instead, the NANP administrator, after receiving the individual carrier revenue data through the worksheet, calculates "contribution factors" and individual carrier contributions, and subsequently bills carriers. b. Discussion 15. We modify the original proposal so that the new Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet will not include any blocks for calculation of contributions to any of the mechanisms. Instead, contributors will be billed for any contributions by the relevant administrator after the worksheet has been submitted. This procedure will be consistent with the approach now taken by NANP Billing and Collection Agent in the administration of the NANP mechanism and by USAC in the administration of the universal service support mechanisms. This change will also simplify the worksheet and reduce administrative burdens on carriers, which will no longer need to calculate their own contribution. 16. With respect to the shared costs of local number portability, we find persuasive the arguments of Lockheed, the LNP administrator, that including a contribution factor on the worksheet might not best serve the needs of local number portability administration. Lockheed argues that local number portability costs are variable and do not lend themselves to a single, annual collection. No commenter opposes Lockheed's proposal to bill contributors after collecting data through the worksheet, and we see no reason, in this case, not to allow Lockheed to follow the approach that it concludes will be administratively most efficient. Therefore, the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet does not include blocks for filers to calculate their contributions to the local number portability cost recovery mechanism. 17. We also amend our rules for TRS administration so that the TRS administrator may bill contributors after the revenue data collection, rather than concurrent with the filing of that data. This change to the TRS support mechanism is supported by NECA, the TRS administrator, which argues that the Commission should alter the current practice of estimating contribution factors and requiring filers to submit their contribution with the worksheet. As NECA observes, this change in procedure would make the TRS collection process consistent with the other funds. In the absence of evidence of increased administrative costs, we believe that this administrative change will decrease confusion among carriers and should not alter the size of any individual carrier's contribution. Accordingly, we adopt NECA's suggestion and make corresponding changes to the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. 2. Certification of Compliance with Section 255 of the Act a. Background 18. The proposed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet included a "check-box" that allowed carriers to certify compliance with section 255 of the Act. b. Discussion 19. We concur with those commenters who suggest that the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet should not include a certification regarding compliance with section 255 of the Act. We note that the Commission has undertaken a proceeding concerning the implementation of section 255 and we believe any proposals for determining compliance with section 255 are more appropriately considered in that proceeding. We accordingly delete the certification of compliance with section 255 from the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet and instructions. 3. Revenues from Internet and Internet Protocol Telephony a. Background 20. The instructions to the proposed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet indicated that revenue from calls handled using Internet technology should be included in end- user telecommunications revenue. Several commenters argue that the language in the proposed instructions would alter Commission policy with respect to Internet and Internet Protocol (IP) telephony and that the Commission should not effect such a change without a more developed record of comment. Further, certain commenters state the Commission may not alter its treatment of Internet and IP telephony without adequate notice and comment opportunity under the Administrative Procedure Act, which these commenters find lacking in this instance. These commenters each oppose the inclusion of revenues derived from Internet and IP telephony as a general matter. Bell Atlantic, alternatively, counters that the language in the proposed Instructions does not constitute a change in Commission policy toward Internet and IP telephony and that the Commission should not exempt such revenues from the contributions base. b. Discussion 21. As noted by certain commenters, this Commission in its April 10, 1998 Report to Congress considered the question of contributions to universal service support mechanisms based on revenues from Internet and Internet Protocol (IP) telephony services. We note that the Commission, in the Report to Congress, specifically decided to defer making pronouncements about the regulatory status of various forms of IP telephony until the Commission develops a more complete record on individual service offerings. We, accordingly, delete language from the instructions that might appear to affect the Commission's existing treatment of Internet and IP telephony. Since we do not effect any substantive change on this issue, we need not address commenter concerns about proper notice under the Administrative Procedures Act. 4. Proposed Changes to the Reporting Requirements and Contribution Obligations a. Background 22. Various commenters took the opportunity to suggest changes that would implicate the reporting requirements and underlying contribution obligations. For example, a number of commenters urge the Commission to drop the requirement, stated in the proposed instructions, that each legal entity, including each affiliate or subsidiary of an entity, must complete and file separately a copy of the attached Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. Similarly, certain commenters ask the Commission to change the requirement, reflected in the proposed instructions, that contributors have documented procedures to ensure that they report revenues from entities that do not contribute to the universal service support mechanism, e.g., revenues from carriers that qualify for the de minimis exemption. Other commenters ask the Commission to strike language that effectively requires carriers that provide only international service to contribute to the mechanisms, if the carriers are affiliated with a carrier that provides interstate services. 23. Several commenters object to the specific revenue breakout, included in the proposed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, to collect information on charges that are designated by telecommunications carriers as universal service charges. Further, these commenters argue that is improper for the proposed worksheet to include those surcharges as telecommunications revenue. 24. Two international carriers ask the Commission to clarify that contributions to the universal service support mechanisms based on international revenues should include only international revenues derived from domestic end users. 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 -- other than settlement receipts -- from both U.S.-billed traffic and foreign-billed traffic." b. Discussion 25. 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 non-contributing resellers, and for reporting revenue where affiliates have interstate revenues, each of these policies was previously incorporated in the relevant worksheets 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 worksheet, not to revisit each underlying decision. While some of these proposals may have merit, we decline to adopt changes to these practices here. 26. 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 counted as revenue from telecommunications services. Accordingly, we defer consideration of this issue here and will take further steps based on the outcomes of these other proceedings. 27. 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 in foreign points and terminate in the United States. Accordingly, we defer consideration of 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 directed in the worksheet instructions. D. Timing Issues 1. Background 28. In the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission observed that under current practice the worksheets for the universal service, TRS, and NANP mechanisms are due at different times of the year. 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 number portability. 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 eliminate the second filing. 2. Discussion a. Uniform Filing Date 29. Consolidating the multiple existing filings into the Telecommunications Reporting 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 administrators. 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, NANP, and local number portability. Our decision to adopt a single filing date is bolstered by all of the commenters to address this proposal. 30. 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 administrators and the Commission who must verify data and calculate contributions. 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. 31. 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 499-S 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 499-A 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 section 413 obligations concerning agents for service of process, discussed supra, 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. b. September 1st Filing Date for Universal Service Support Mechanisms 32. 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 develop contribution factors using relatively current information. The Commission did not, in the Notice, propose to disturb this procedure. We therefore decline the invitations of USTA and other commenters to eliminate the September 1st filing for universal service purposes. As the Commission made clear in the Notice, elimination of the September 1st filing is beyond the scope of this proceeding. 33. We do conclude, as GTE suggests, that a more streamlined form is acceptable for the September 1st filing. Accordingly, we adopt a "short form" for purposes of the September 1st filing that will omit data that is not essential for the mid-year 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 under-reporting of specific types of revenues or inadequate assignment of specific types of revenues. Since USAC calculates second half revenues by subtracting the September 1 first-half filed revenue from the April 1 whole-year revenue, errors in the first-half reporting are automatically adjusted so that the whole-year 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. E. Filing Location(s) 1. Background 34. In the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission proposed that carriers file the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet at only one location. The Commission noted that this proposal would require administrators to coordinate and share contributor data. 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 additional steps to ensure that administrators have adequate ability to coordinate this process. 2. Discussion 35. 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 simplify our reporting requirements and will lower their administrative costs. 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 Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet. F. Procedures for Future Changes to the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet 1. Background 36. In the Universal Service Second Order on Reconsideration, the Commission delegated authority to the Bureau to waive, reduce, or eliminate the contributor reporting requirements associated with the universal service support mechanisms. The Bureau was also delegated authority to require any additional contributor reporting requirements necessary to the sound and efficient administration of the universal service support mechanisms. In the cases of TRS and numbering administration, the Bureau has regularly issued the annual worksheets to gather the necessary contributor data. 37. To make clear that the Bureau should continue to handle administrative details associated with issuing the worksheets, in the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission proposed to delegate authority to make future changes to the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau. 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. 2. Discussion 38. We adopt our proposal and delegate authority to make future changes to the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau. 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. These 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 tasks to the Bureau is generally supported by commenters addressing this issue. 39. 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 and efficient administration of these support and cost recovery mechanisms. 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 addressing this proposal. We reaffirm that this delegation extends only to making changes to the administrative aspects of the reporting requirements, not to the substance of the underlying programs. G. Information Sharing and Delegation of Data Entry Functions Between Administrators 1. Background 40. The Commission proposed to permit the sharing among the TRS, universal service, NANP, and local number portability administrators of certain revenue and contact information provided by contributors. The Commission stated in the Notice that this proposal would permit administrators to cross-check 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 to their administration of the mechanism. 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 the Universal Service Worksheet. 41. The Commission proposed to authorize each of the four administrators to engage in similar sharing arrangements. 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 with requests for confidential treatment of their data. 42. 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 mechanism. 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 Bureau. 2. Discussion 43. 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 each of the four administrators and is widely supported by commenters. 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 treatment of confidential contributor information. 44. Starting with the April 2000 filing of the consolidated worksheet, the administrators will have a practical need to share carrier-provided information because we direct in this order that filers need only submit one copy of their completed worksheets. Rather than mandate particular data sharing procedures, we order the administrators to develop efficient and effective procedures for collecting, validating, and distributing the centrally-filed 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 after release of this order, a summary of their proposed procedures for distributing the data from the worksheet. 45. We conclude that the costs of collecting, validating, and distributing the carrier- provided 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. 46. 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. H. Additional Confidentiality Issues 1. Background 47. The Commission proposed, as currently allowed under the Universal Service Worksheet, 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 harm to the competitive position of the entity filing the worksheet. 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 pursuant to section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. 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 inspection information submitted to the Commission. The Commission sought comment on this proposal. 2. Discussion 48. 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 information would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the entity filing the worksheet. 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 their desire to seek nondisclosure of the revenue data included in the worksheet. 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. 49. 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 full showing required under our rules. 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 contribution to one of the support or cost recovery mechanisms. 50. 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 mechanisms. 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 the revenue data that are currently filed. 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 contributor- provided information, our rules will be sufficient to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of confidential data. I. Electronic Filing 1. Background 51. In the Notice, the Commission proposed to require the administrators to provide for and encourage electronic filing of the consolidated form. 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 (OMB). 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 extent of the administrative costs to implement an electronic filing system. In addition, the Commission expressed its commitment to making electronic filing and other electronic applications accessible to persons with disabilities to the fullest extent possible. 2. Discussion 52. 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 with great involvement from the administrators and carriers. 53. 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 start-up and on-going 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 electronic filing should not require expensive start-up costs for filers. Moreover, we conclude that any electronic filing proposal must satisfy a cost-benefit 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 fullest extent possible. Therefore, the administrators' report should address their ability -- both now and on a continuing basis -- to make electronic systems accessible to persons with disabilities. IV. CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRS AND NANPA MECHANISMS A. Overview 54. In this section, we adopt our proposals to alter the revenue bases for the TRS and NANP mechanisms so that end-user 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 multiple obligations imposed on regulated communications companies. 55. 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 give adequate notice of these changes. There is no dispute that these proposed changes were expressly noticed in the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice. Indeed, MCI does not 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 the underlying proceedings. We disagree. Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) requires that an agency afford interested parties adequate notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, the provisions that appear in the agency's final regulations. Courts have interpreted this to require that an agency provide "sufficient factual detail and rationale for the rule to permit interested parties to comment meaningfully." The Contributor 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. B. Basis for Assessing Contributions 1. Background 56. 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 revenues and net telecommunications revenues, respectively. In the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission proposed to change the revenue basis for contributions to the TRS and NANP mechanisms, so that contributors would base their contributions on end-user telecommunications revenue. End-user 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 purchase telecommunications services for their own internal use. In the Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded that changing the funding basis to end-user 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 addressed in the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice. 57. For the purposes of NANP, the Commission also proposed that carriers that provided telecommunications service during the base year with no end-user 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 primarily-large carriers that serve other carriers. 2. Discussion 58. 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 end-user telecommunications revenues. Basing contributions to these mechanisms on end-user telecommunications revenue will effectively carry out the statutory mandates in section 225 and 251 for financing of TRS and NANP. In addition to fulfilling the statutory directives, moving to an end-user 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 end-user telecommunications revenue will appreciably reduce administrative burdens overall for carriers. 59. Basing contributions on end-user 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 service." 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 their interstate revenues will accomplish this goal. End users are a reasonable proxy for subscribers, so collecting contributions from carriers based on revenue derived from end users satisfies section 225. 60. Similarly, collecting contributions to the NANP cost recovery on the basis of end- user 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 competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission." As the Commission previously found in the LNP Cost Recovery Order, the end-user telecommunications revenue basis satisfies the section 251 directive that contributions be assessed on a competitively neutral basis. In particular, the Commission found this basis to be competitively neutral because it does not give one service provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage when competing for a subscriber. Further, basing contributions on end-user 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 end-user telecommunications revenues will be competitively neutral. 61. Adopting an end-user 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 again when the retail carrier collects revenue from its customer. In the TRS Third Report and 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 would not be material. At that time, the Commission concluded that, for TRS purposes, basing contributions on other revenue bases (e.g., net telecommunications revenue or end-user telecommunications revenue) would require more information and administrator review and that "the cost of identifying double counting would probably exceed the contribution associated with any double counting." Because most carriers now report this data for the purposes of universal service and long-term number portability, this concern has been rendered immaterial. Moreover, we believe that adopting a single reporting worksheet largely eliminates these concerns about added costs. 62. In choosing an end-user telecommunications revenue basis, we decline the suggestions of MCI that we use a net telecommunications revenue basis for all four support 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 and satisfies the requirements of section 251. 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 as administrative efficiency. We conclude, as is amply supported in the record, that adopting an end-user telecommunications revenue basis will increase administrative efficiencies and reduce carrier confusion. As the Commission explained in the Universal Service Order, an end-user telecommunications revenue basis is administratively more efficient than a net telecommunications revenue basis. 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 contributors. 63. We are unpersuaded by MCI's contention that the end-user telecommunications revenue method is not competitively neutral simply because it will attribute a greater portion of direct contributions to IXCs. 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 end-user 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 end-user basis meets our two prong test for competitive neutrality, as set out in the LNP Cost Recovery Order. 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 would not give one service provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage when competing for a particular subscriber. 64. 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 telecommunications revenue basis and an end-user telecommunications revenue basis. 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 methodology. As the Commission concluded in the LNP Cost Recovery Order, because the end-user telecommunications revenue basis reaches the same result, but without the inefficiency and added complication of the pass- through step, we prefer the end-user telecommunications revenue basis. 65. 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 requirements. Indeed, using the same revenue basis for all four funds furthers the deregulatory, burden- reducing objectives that we seek to achieve by creating a unified contributor collection worksheet. Only MCI objects to an end-user telecommunications basis on administrative grounds. We disagree with MCI and note that the Commission found, in the Universal Service Order, that an end-user telecommunications revenue basis will be easy for carriers to administer because carriers already track their sales to end-users for billing purposes. An end-user 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 respondents as part of the universal service reporting requirements -- now to be combined in the consolidated worksheet. Thus, the change to end-user telecommunications revenues for TRS purposes should represent little, if any, added administrative burden to either contributors or the administrator. 66. We observed in the Notice that, by changing the funding bases to end-user telecommunications revenues, we would effectively exempt from contributions a number of carriers that have significant gross telecommunications revenue but no end-user telecommunications revenue, for example, carriers providing wholesale services. 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. 67. 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 all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis . . . ." 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 end-user telecommunications revenue to make a fixed contribution of twenty-five dollars ($25) to the NANP cost recovery mechanism. 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 burdensome for these primarily-large wholesale carriers. Finally, we observe that although an end-user telecommunications revenue basis would otherwise relieve pure wholesalers, which have no end-user revenue, from directly bearing costs of number administration, the end-user method does not exclude wholesale revenues from the revenue base that determines carriers' 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 revenue. 68. To minimize confusion for contributors and the administrators, we wish to make the transition to contributions based on end-user 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 June 2000. As of July 1, 2000 contributions to the TRS Fund will be based on end-user 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. 69. 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 end-user 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-up" for the contributions in July 2000. 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. C. Minimum and Fixed Annual Contributions to TRS and NANPA Mechanisms 1. Background 70. Pursuant to section 64.604(c)(4)(iii) of the Commission's rules, every carrier providing interstate telecommunications services "must contribute at least $100 per year" for the financing of TRS. Similarly, contributors to the NANP cost recovery have been required to make a minimum payment of $100 per year. In the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission proposed to reduce the current requirements for minimum annual contributions to these mechanisms. 71. Specifically, the Commission proposed to eliminate the one hundred dollar ($100) minimum contribution rule as applied to the TRS Fund. For purposes of NANP, the Commission proposed a two-part structure for determining minimum contributions. First, the Commission proposed that telecommunications carriers with no end-user 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 end-user 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 proposals. 2. Discussion 72. We modify our proposals and amend our rules to reduce substantially the one hundred dollar minimum contributions to a twenty-five 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 that owe contributions of less than one hundred dollars. Although a number of commenters support eliminating a minimum contribution altogether, we nevertheless find that this would tend to undermine the efficient administration of the TRS funding mechanism. 73. Simply put, such contributions, no matter how small, impose certain administrative costs (for example, costs to process carrier worksheets). We think that a twenty- five dollar minimum contribution is sufficient to cover these costs while ensuring that all carriers also contribute toward funding the program. Further, by reducing the currently-imposed 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 owe. 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 twenty-five dollar minimum is such a reasonable minimum and will help to ensure that result. 74. Moreover, since we determined above that successfully administering the NANP per the mandate of Congress requires that all carriers make NANP contributions, we conclude that all telecommunications carriers -- both those with end-user telecommunications revenues and those without end-user telecommunications revenues -- should make a minimum contribution of twenty-five dollar per year to the NANPA cost recovery mechanism. V. BILLING AND COLLECTION FUNCTIONS A. Background 75. In a Notice of Inquiry attached to the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, 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 maintaining accuracy and accountability in the administration of the mechanisms. 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 single agent. 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 funding purposes, e.g., the local number portability administration, the NANPA administration, and the TRS Fund. B. Discussion 76. 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 administration. 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. VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 77. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Contributor Reporting 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, 1998, OMB approved the proposed information collection, as submitted to OMB. In this 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. 78. 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 reducing to the lowest possible level the burden on carriers and service providers. Indeed, the Commission has undertaken this proceeding to achieve the same deregulatory goals urged by commenters, such as GST, by consolidating multiple, existing reporting requirements. 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 incumbent LECs. 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 USOA 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. 79. 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 the information requested. 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 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 supplying certain information is particularly burdensome for certain carriers. B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 80. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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. VII. CONCLUSION 81. 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. VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES 82. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 11, 201- 205, 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, 201-205, 210, 214, 218, 225, 251, 254, 303(r), 332 and 403 that this ORDER is hereby ADOPTED. 83. 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. 84. 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. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary APPENDIX A -- LIST OF COMMENTERS 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) 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 APPENDIX B -- RULES AMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 303(r). 2. Section 1.47(h) of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:  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 e-mail 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. * * * * * PART 52 - NUMBERING Part 52 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: 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, 201-205, 207-209, 218, 225-7, 251-2, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-205, 207-09, 218, 225-7, 251-2, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 52.16 of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:  52.16 Billing and Collection Agent. The B & C Agent shall: (a) Calculate, assess, bill and collect payments for numbering administration functions and distribute funds to NANPA on a monthly basis; (b) Distribute to carriers the "Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet," described in Section 52.17(b). (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. (d)-(f) * * * * * * 3. Section 52.17 of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:  52.17 Costs of number administration. All telecommunications carriers in the United States shall contribute on a competitively neutral basis to meet the costs of establishing numbering administration. (a) Contributions to support numbering administration shall be the product of the contributors' end-user 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 twenty-five dollars ($25). The contribution factor shall be based on the ratio of expected number administration expenses to end-user telecommunications revenues. Carriers that have no end-user telecommunications revenues shall contribute twenty-five 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. (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. * * * 4. Section 52.32 of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:  52.32 Allocation of the shared costs of long-term number portability. (a) * * * (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 long-term number portability. (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. (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 long-term number portability attributable to a regional database, the carrier shall treat that portion as a carrier-specific cost directly related to providing number portability. * * * * * PART 54 - UNIVERSAL SERVICE Part 54 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 54 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 54.708 is amended to read as follows:  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. 3. Section 54.709 is amended to read as follows:  54.709 Computations of required contributions to universal service support 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 Commission. (1) * * * (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). (3)-(5) * * * (b) * * * (c) * * * (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. 4. Section 54.711 is amended to read as follows:  54.711 Contributor reporting requirements. (a) Contributions shall be calculated and filed in accordance with the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet which shall be published in the Federal Register. The 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 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. (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. (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. 5. Section 54.713 is amended to read as follows:  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. * * * * * PART 64 - MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R) is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2), (c), Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. secs. 201, 218, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 64.604(c)(4)(iii) of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:  64.604 Mandatory Minimum Standards (a) * * * (b) * * * (c) Functional standards-- (i) * * * (iii) * * * (iii) Telecommunications Relay Services Fund. (1) *** (2) *** (3) *** (4) Jurisdictional Separation of Costs (A) Contributions. Every carrier providing interstate telecommunications services shall contribute to the TRS Fund on the basis of its relative share of interstate end-user 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. (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 end-user 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. (C) - (H) * * * (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 long-term 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. (J) * * * (K) * * * (5) * * * * * * * * APPENDIX C -- FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS 1. In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice. 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 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. I. Need for, and Objectives of, the Contributor Reporting Requirements Order: 2. The Commission undertakes this examination of its contributor reporting requirements as a part of its 1998 biennial review of regulations as required by section 11 of the Communications Act, as amended. This Order simplifies the Commission's filing requirements by consolidating several different forms currently filed under our existing rules associated with the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund, federal universal service support mechanisms, the cost recovery mechanism for the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) administration, and the cost recovery mechanism for long-term local number portability (LNP) administration. This Order also establishes end-user 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 section 11 of the Act, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 3. Only one party filed comments addressing the Commission's compliance with the RFA, 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 paperwork required by the current contributor reporting requirements. Consistent with those comments, this Order reduces significantly the amount of paperwork required of telecommunications carriers. 4. In comments to the Notice, GST argues that the proposed Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet is particularly burdensome for small carriers because it assumes that small carriers have developed sophisticated accounting infrastructure. 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. 5. 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 investments by small carriers. We agree that proposals for electronic filing of the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet should not require expensive start-up costs for filers, so that all carriers, including small entities, should be able to utilize a more efficient system. IV. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply: 6. The Commission's contributor reporting requirements apply to a wide range of entities, including all telecommunications carriers and other providers of interstate telecommunications that offer telecommunications for a fee. 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 carrier-type 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. 7. 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 business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction." In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 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 1,500 employees. 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. 8. 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 wireless 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 (TRS). According to data in the most recent report, there are 3,604 interstate carriers. These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers. 9. 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 ILECs that arguably might be defined by the SBA as "small business concerns." 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 engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year. 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 and operated." 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. 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 at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone 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 non-radiotelephone 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. 12. Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers, 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 carrier-types under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. 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 Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to our most recent data, there are 1,410 LECs, 151 IXCs, 129 CAPs, 32 OSPs, and 351 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. 13. Wireless (Radiotelephone) Carriers. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were 1,176 such companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small business radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. 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. 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 telephone companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. 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 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of Other Mobile Services. 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. 15. 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 average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. 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 million for the preceding three calendar years. These regulations defining "small entity" in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by SBA. No small businesses within the SBA- approved 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. 16. 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 approved by the SBA, 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. 17. 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. 18. 220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II 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 Communications companies. 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 employees. Therefore, if this general ratio continues to 1999 in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's definition. 19. 220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase II Licensees. The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order 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 installment payments. 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 more than $3 million for the preceding three years. An auction of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 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 II licenses won at auction. 20. Paging. The Commission has proposed a two-tier definition of small businesses in the context of auctioning licenses in the Common Carrier Paging and exclusive Private Carrier Paging 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 radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. At present, there are approximately 24,000 Private Paging licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. 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 together in the data. 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. 21. 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 SBA-approved 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. 22. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS). We will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. 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. 23. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. Accordingly, we will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. 24. Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR). PLMR systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. 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. 25. 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 Report on PLMRs 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. 26. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. 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 companies -- i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons. 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. 27. 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 bordering the Gulf of Mexico. 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. 28. 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. IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: 29. The decisions and rule changes adopted in this Order will reduce the reporting and recordkeeping requirements on telecommunications service providers regulated under the Communications 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 pursuant to section 413 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. We expect that, by adopting these proposals, telecommunications service providers will experience an appreciable reduction in reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance burdens. V. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered: 30. In the Contributor Reporting Requirements Notice, the Commission sought comment on ways to simplify its contributor reporting requirements and, in particular, whether a unified worksheet would reduce regulatory and administrative burden on reporting carriers. 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 support and cost recovery mechanisms. 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. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Contributor Reporting Requirements Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. APPENDIX D -- TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTING WORKSHEET April Version: FCC Form 499-A September Version: FCC Form 499-S Statement of Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth Re: 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. 98-171) I support adoption of this Report and Order wherein, pursuant to the Commission's 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 Commission's 1998 Biennial Review, which was conducted pursuant to Section 11(a) of the Act, Id. at Sect. 161(a). However, as thoroughly described in my Report on Implementation of 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. * * * * * * *