[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49987-49992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24464]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 69
[CC Docket No. 96-187 ; FCC 96-367]
Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(a) of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (Tariff Streamlining Provisions for Local Exchange
Carriers)
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In light of the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(1996 Act), which provides for streamlining tariff filings by local
exchange carriers (LECs), the Commission is issuing this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the specific streamlining
requirements of the Act. Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on the
statutory effect of LEC tariffs subject to streamlined regulation being
``deemed lawful.'' In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on the types
tariffs eligible for filing on a streamlined basis and measures to
streamlining the administration of LEC tariff process.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 1996. Reply
comments must be submitted on or before October 24, 1996. Written
comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis must be filed
in accordance with the same filing deadlines set for comments on the
other issues in the NPRM. Written comments by the public on the
proposed and or modified information collections are also due at the
same time as other comments on this NPRM. Written comments must be
submitted by OMB on the proposed and/or modified information
collections within 60 days of publication of this NPRM in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments and Reply comments should be sent to the Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Jerry McKoy of the
Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 518, Washington, D.C.
20554. Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this
docket with the Commission's commercial copy contractor,
[[Page 49988]]
International Transcription Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite
140, Washington, D.C. 20037. Comments and reply comments will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C.
20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Donovan or Dan Abeyta at (202)
418-1520, Common Carrier Bureau, Competitive Pricing Division. For
additional information concerning the information collections contained
in this NPRM, contact Dorothy Conway at (202) 418-0217, or via the
Internet at dconway@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's NPRM
of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 96-367) adopted on August 30, 1996 and
released on September 6, 1996. The full text of this NPRM is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.
Background
The NPRM tentatively concludes that these provisions to streamline
LEC tariff filings do not preclude the Commission from exercising its
forbearance authority under Section 10(a) of the Act to establish
permissive or mandatory detariffing of LEC tariffs should the
Commission choose to do so. The NPRM solicits comments on this
tentative conclusion.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections
contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same
time as comments on the other issues in the NPRM; OMB notification of
action is due 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal
Register. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarify of the
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
OMB Approval Number: None.
Title: Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Tariff Streamlining Provisions for
Local Exchange Carriers) CC Docket No. 96-187.
Form No: N/A.
Type of Review: New Collection
Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small
businesses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
hour
Proposed requirement Number of burden
respondents per
response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic filing................................ 50 72
Tariff summaries................................. 50 36
Analysis of lawfulness........................... 50 72
Separate filing for rate decreases............... 10 4
Identification/labelling of streamlined tariffs.. 50 9
Filing of proposed orders........................ 10 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Burden: 9,570.
Estimated Costs Per Respondents: $2,800.
Needs and Uses: The information collections proposed in this NPRM
would be used to ensure that affected telecommunications carriers
fulfill their obligations under the Communications Act, as amended.
SYNOPSIS OF NPRM OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
I. Introduction
1. On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996
Act) became law. The 1996 Act seeks ``to provide for a pro-competitive,
deregulatory national political framework'' designed to make available
to all Americans advanced telecommunications and information
technologies and services ``by opening all telecommunications markets
to competition.'' Section 402(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the 1996 Act adds
Section 204(a)(3) to the Communications Act, which provides for
streamlined tariff filings by local exchange carriers (LECs). In this
NPRM, the Commission proposes measures to implement the specific
streamlining requirements of Section 204(a)(3) as well as additional
steps for streamlining the tariff process, consistent with the goals of
the 1996 Act.
II. The 1996 Act
2. Section 402(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the 1996 Act adds new subsection 3
to Section 204(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the Act):
(3) A local exchange carrier may file with the Commission a new
or revised charge, classification, regulation, or practice on a
streamlined basis. Any such charge, classification, regulation, or
practice shall be deemed lawful and shall be effective 7 days (in
the case of a reduction in rates) or 15 days (in the case of an
increase in rates) after the date on which it is filed with the
Commission unless the Commission takes action under paragraph (1)
before the end of that 7-day or 15-day period as appropriate.
Section 402 of the 1996 Act also amends Section 204(a) of the Act
to provide that the Commission shall conclude any hearings initiated
under this section within five months after the date the charge,
classification, regulation, or practice subject to the hearing becomes
effective. Section 402(b)(4) of the 1996 Act provides that these
amendments shall apply to any charge classification, regulation, or
practice filed on or after one year after the date of enactment of the
Act (i.e., February 8, 1997).
3. Under the 1996 Act, a local exchange carrier (LEC) is defined as
``any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange
service or exchange access.'' A LEC ``does not include a person insofar
as such person is engaged in the provision of commercial mobile radio
service under section 332(c), except to the extent that the Commission
finds that such service should be included in the definition of such
term.''
III. Streamlined LEC Tariff Filings Under the 1996 Act
4. We believe that by adopting the provisions in Section 204(a)(3),
Congress did not intend for the Commission to defer tariffs eligible
for streamlined filing. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that
Congress intended to foreclose Commission exercise of its general
authority under Section 203(b)(2) to defer up to 120 days tariffs that
LECs may file on seven and 15 days' notice. We solicit comment on this
tentative conclusion. Section 204(a)(3) of the Act also provides that
LEC tariffs filed on a streamlined basis shall be ``deemed lawful.''
The 1996 Act and the legislative history are silent regarding the
specific legal consequences of this provision. We tentatively conclude
that, by specifying that LEC tariffs shall be ``deemed lawful,''
Congress intended to change the current regulatory treatment of LEC
tariff filings.
5. We have identified at least two possible interpretations of
``deemed lawful'' that would alter the current regulatory treatment of
LEC tariff filings. First, this language could be interpreted to change
the legal status of LEC tariffs
[[Page 49989]]
that become effective without suspension and investigation. This
interpretation of the statutory language would treat tariffs that have
been ``deemed lawful'' similar to the way that we currently treat
tariffs found lawful by the Commission after investigation. This
interpretation, however, absent a suspension and investigation within
7/15 days, would limit the remedies available to LEC customers for
rates, terms, and conditions that violate Section 201-202 of the Act in
that damages could not be awarded for the period prior to the time the
Commission determined in a Section 205 or 208 proceeding that a
different rate, charge, classification, or practice would be lawful in
the future. We solicit comment on this interpretation of ``deemed
lawful'' and whether Congress intended ``deemed lawful'' to have the
effect of limiting customers' remedies.
6. As an alternative approach, ``deemed lawful'' could be
interpreted not to change the status of tariffs that become effective
without suspension and investigation, but only to establish higher
burdens for suspensions and investigation, such as by ``presuming'' LEC
tariffs ``lawful.'' Under this interpretation, the statutory language
``unless the Commission [suspends and investigates] before the end of
that 7-day or 15-day period,'' would not apply to the ``deemed lawful''
phrase, but only to the ``shall be effective'' phrase. A tariff that is
reviewed under these presumptions of lawfulness is still subject to
complaints and investigations under Sections 208 and 205. Damages may
also be awarded for any period the tariff was in effect. We solicit
comment on whether we should interpret ``deemed lawful'' to create a
presumption of lawfulness in the pre-effective tariff review process.
7. Any interpretation of ``deemed lawful,'' of course, must be
consistent with other provisions of the Communications Act. Section
402(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the 1996 Act adds new Section 204(a)(3) concerning
LEC tariff streamlining, but does not otherwise amend the statutory
scheme for tariffing of interstate common carrier communications
services. Thus, LECs and other carriers continue to be required to file
tariffs pursuant to Section 203, and the rates, terms, and conditions
of service must be just and reasonable under Section 201(b) of the Act,
and not unreasonably discriminatory under Section 202(a) of the Act.
Pursuant to Section 204(a) of the Act,the Commission may suspend and
investigate proposed tariffs if they raise substantial questions of law
and fact and there is substantial risk that ratepayers or competitors
would be harmed if the proposed tariff revisions were allowed to take
effect. The 1996 Act also does not alter the Commission's authority to
reject tariff filings, which derives from Section 201 of the Act.
8. We believe that both of our possible interpretations are
consistent with this statutory scheme. Thus, our interpretations would
not appear to conflict with any of the statutory provisions left in
place by the 1996 Act. We additionally solicit comment on other
possible interpretations of ``deemed lawful.'' We will adopt the
interpretation that will best meet the text and intent of the 1996
Act's tariff streamlining provisions.
IV. LEC Tariffs Eligible for Filing on a Streamlined Basis
9. The NPRM next considers the types of LEC tariff filings that are
eligible for streamlined treatment. We tentatively conclude that all
LEC tariff filings that involve changes to the rates, terms and
conditions of existing service offerings are eligible for streamlined
treatment. We believe that this interpretation would be most consistent
with the purposes of Section 204(a)(3), and would simplify the
administration of the LEC tariffing process. We solicit comment on this
tentative conclusion. We solicit comment on the appropriate treatment
of tariffs for new services. In addition, Section 204(a)(3) states that
LECs ``may'' file under streamlined provision. We tentatively conclude
that LECs may elect to file on longer notice periods, but that if they
choose to do so, such tariffs would not be ``deemed lawful.'' We also
tentatively conclude that Section 204(a)(3) does not preclude the
Commission from exercising its forbearance authority under Section
10(a) of the Act to establish permissive or mandatory detariffing of
LEC tariffs. We solicit comments on these tentative conclusions.
V. Streamlined Administration of LEC Tariffs
10. We also discuss additional measures to more fully achieve a
more streamlined and deregulatory environment for the administration of
LEC tariffs without undermining existing statutory requirements.
11. Electronic Filing. We propose to require that carriers file
tariffs and associated documents electronically. We solicit comment on
whether the Commission should be responsible for organizing, posting,
and supervising the tariff electronic filing system, or whether each
carrier should be given the responsibility for posting, managing, and
maintaining its electronic file of tariffs, subject to Commission
requirements. We tentatively conclude that carrier administration of
the electronic filing system, subject to Commission oversight, would
lead to a more streamlined administration of tariffs. We also propose
to require that tariffs be submitted electronically in a specified
database software program. We invite parties to submit detailed
proposals for implementing an electronic system for tariff filings.
12. Exclusive Reliance of Post-Effective Tariff Review. We solicit
comment on whether the Commission can, and should, adopt a policy of
relying exclusively on post-effective tariff review, at least for
certain types of tariffs. If parties conclude that we should adopt this
practice for certain types of tariff transmittals, they should identify
the classes and explain why post-effective review would service the
public interest We also seek comment on whether under such a general
policy, the Commission should retain the discretion to conduct a pre-
effective tariff review in individual cases. We solicit comment on the
extent to which Section 204(a) limits our ability to rely on post-
effective tariff review, and whether we should establish specific rules
and procedures governing requests to review effective tariffs if we
decide to place greater emphasis on such reviews in administering LEC
tariffs.
13. Pre-effective Tariff Review of Streamlined Tariff Filings.
Assuming that we continue to undertake pre-effective review of LEC
tariffs filed on a streamlined basis under Section 204(a)(3), we
solicit comment on what measures, if any, the Commission should
establish in order to decide whether to suspend and investigate a
transmittal within seven and 15 days. Specifically, we propose that
LECs file summaries of the proposed tariff revisions with their tariff
filings and an analysis showing that the tariffs are lawful under
applicable rules. We solicit comments on whether the benefits of such
requirements outweigh the burdens that it would impose on the filing
carriers. In addition, we solicit comment on whether we may establish
presumptions of unlawfulness for narrow categories of tariffs, such as
tariffs facially not in compliance with our price cap rules, that would
permit suspension and designation of issues for investigation through
abbreviated orders or public notices. We solicit comment on what kinds
of tariffs could be accorded this presumption.
14. We also request comment on the appropriate treatment of tariff
transmittals that contain rate increases and decreases. We tentatively
conclude
[[Page 49990]]
that the 15-day notice period should apply to these. Furthermore,
carriers wishing to take advantage of the 7-day notice period should
file rate decreases in separate transmittals. Moreover, because of the
short notice periods, to identify transmittals filed pursuant to
Section 204(a)(2), we propose to require LECs to include a label in
front of the tariff or a statement in the tariff transmittal indicating
whether the tariff contains rate increases, rate decreases, or both. We
also request comment on the best method for alerting the staff and
interested parties about the contents of tariff transmittals. We
additionally solicit comment on whether we should, as a convenience to
interested parties, maintain a list of interested parties and provide
affirmative notice to them by e-mail when a LEC tariff is filed. We
would envision that this affirmative notice would not constitute legal
notice of filing and that failure to provide notice for any reason
would not extend the notice periods. Nevertheless, this would provide a
convenient way for interested parties to learn about the tariffs.
Finally, we tentatively conclude that the statutory notice period of
seven and 15 refers to calendar days, not working or week days.
15. To the extent that we rely on pre-effective review, we will
need to establish new filing periods to suspend and reject LEC
transmittals filed on 7/15 days' notice. We propose to require that
petitions against LEC tariffs that are effective within 7 or 15 days
must be filed within 3 days after the date of the tariff filing and
replies 2 days after service of the petition. We propose that
determinations of due dates will be made under Section 1.4(j) of the
rules, which provides that when a due date falls on a holiday or
weekend, the document will be filed on the next business day. We also
propose to require that all such petitions and replies will be hand-
delivered to all affected parties, at least where the party is a
commercial entity. In addition, we propose that in computing time
periods, parties should be required to include intermediate holidays
and weekends. We solicit comments on these proposals. We also seek
comment on whether we should not provide for a public comment period
during the 7/15 days' notice period. Instead, we would provide for
comment only where a LEC tariff is suspended and investigated. We
solicit comment on whether Section 204(a) establishes a right for
interested persons to request suspension and investigation that may not
be foreclosed.
16. The NPRM points out that the Commission regularly receives
requests for confidential treatment of cost data filed with tariff
transmittals and also requests under the Freedom of Information Act for
cost data for which the carrier has requested confidential treatment.
Given the 7/15 day notice period established by the 1996 Act, we
believe that the Commission will be unable to resolve these
controversies on a case-by-case basis within the 7/15 day period
established by the 1996 Act. We thus solicit comment on whether we
should routinely impose a standard protective order whenever a carrier
claims in good faith that information qualifies as confidential under
relevant Commission precedent. We solicit comment on what the terms of
a standard protective order should be, whether we should identify in
the rules the types of data that would be eligible for confidential
treatment, and what those types of data would be.
17. Annual Access Tariff Filings. Section 69.3(a) of the
Commission's rules requires LECs and the National Exchange Carrier
Association (NECA) to submit revisions to their annual access tariff on
90 days' notice to be effective July 1. These revisions are limited to
changes in rate levels and therefore are eligible for filing on a
streamlined basis. LECs and NECA are also encouraged to file tariff
review plans (TRPs) to support the revisions to their rates in the
access tariff. With respect to carriers subject to price cap
regulation, we propose to require carriers to file a TRP prior to the
filing of the annual tariff revisions absent any information on
proposed rates. Because the TRP would not include information regarding
a LEC's tariffed rates, charges, classification, we tentatively
conclude that we may require LECs' TRP filings prior to the filing of
the annual access tariff. We seek comment on this approach. We also
solicit comment on the filing date that we should establish for the TRP
if we adopt this approach. With respect to carriers subject to rate-of-
return regulation, we propose to require them to file their TRPs and
annual access tariffs that propose rates 15 days prior to their
scheduled effective date of July 1.
18. Investigations. As noted, Section 402 of the 1996 Act amends
Section 294(a) of the Act, effective February 8, 1997, to provide that
the Commission shall conclude all hearings initiated under this section
within five months after the date the charge, classification,
regulation or practice subject to the hearing becomes effective. We
solicit comment on whether we should establish procedural rules to
expedite the hearing process in light of the shortened period in which
the Commission must complete tariff investigations. We also solicit
suggestions for reforms that will permit expeditious termination of
tariff investigations, such as requiring the filing of form orders,
using abbreviated orders without extensive findings, and terminating
investigations by a pro forma order that adopts a decisional memoranda
of the Common Carrier Bureau. We solicit comment on these approaches to
terminating investigations. We also solicit comment on whether we
should establish procedures for informal mediation of tariff
investigation issues and what those procedures would be.
19. NPRM Requirements. The existing rules specifying notice periods
for LEC tariffs must be amended to conform to the streamlined notice
periods for LEC tariffs established in Section 204(a)(3). Currently
Section 61.58 of the Commission's rules, which specifies the notice
requirements that dominant carriers must afford the Commission and the
public before tariff revisions can go into effect, provide for a notice
period ranging from 14 to 120 days, depending on the type of carriers
and the type of tariffs at issue. We propose to change Section 61.58 of
the Commission's existing rules governing notice periods for LEC tariff
filings to make this section consistent with the streamlined notice
periods of seven and 15 days required by the 1996 Act. We solicit
comment on this proposal. We also propose to permit LECs to file
tariffs eligible for streamlined filing on any notice period greater
than that permitted under the statute. We solicit comment on this
proposal.
VI. Procedural Requirements
A. Ex Parte Presentations
20. This is a non-restricted notice and comment proceeding. Ex
parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda
Period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's
Rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a). Written
submission, however, will be limited as discussed below.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
21. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the expected significant economic impact on small
entities of the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement Section 402(b)(1)(a) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides for streamlined tariff
filings by local exchange carriers. Written public
[[Page 49991]]
comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments on
the NPRM provided below in Section VI(D).
22. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule: The Commission,
in compliance with Section 402 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
proposes to implement streamlined tariff filing requirements for local
exchange carriers (LECs) with the minimum regulatory and administrative
burden on telecommunications carriers.
23. Legal Basis: The Commission's objective in issuing this NPRM is
to propose and seek comment on rules streamlining the LEC tariff filing
process, consistent with the overriding goals of the 1996 Act. The
legal basis for action as proposed in the Further NPRM is contained in
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 218, 251(b), 251(e), and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
201-205, 218, 251(b), 251(d), 251(e), 332.
24. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply: For purposes of this NPRM, the RFA
defines a ``small business'' to be the same as a ``small business
concern'' under the Small Business Act (SBA), 15 U.S.C. 632, unless the
Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate
to its activities. Under the SBA, 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 SBA. SBA has defined a small business for Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) category 4813 (Telephone
Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they
have fewer than 1500 employees.
25. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. Many of the
decisions and rules adopted herein may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small telephone companies identified
by SBA. 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 service, as defined therein, for at least one year.
This number contains a variety of different category 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.
Our rules governing the streamlining of the LEC tariff process apply to
LECs. We believe, however, that incumbent LECs are not small businesses
for IRFA purposes because they are dominant in their field of
operation. In this regard, we have found incumbent LECs to be
``dominant in their field of operation'' since the early 1980's, and we
consistently have certified under the RFA that incumbent LECs are not
subject to regulatory flexibility analysis because they are not small
businesses. In order to remove any possible issue of RFA compliance, we
nevertheless tentatively conclude that small incumbent LECs should be
included in this IRFA.We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
Under the new competitive provisions of the 1996 Act, however, there
could be a number of new LECs entering the local exchange market that
would be considered small businesses. To the extent that such carriers
file tariffs and would be considered non-dominant, we do not believe
that our rules would create any additional burdens because under
section 63.23(c), 47 CFR 63.23(c), non-dominant carriers are permitted
to file tariffs on one day's notice. We solicit comment on this
analysis. Further, our other proposals that would apply to such
carriers, such as streamlined filings, would reduce administrative
burdens, to the extent they file tariffs.
26. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has
developed a definition of small providers of local exchange service
(LECs). The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for
telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)
companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number
of LECs nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we
collect annually in connection with Telecommunications Relay Service
(TRS). According to our most recent data, 1,347 companies reported that
they were engaged in the provision of local exchange service. Although
it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently
owned and operated, or have fewer than 1500 employees, we are unable at
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of LECs that
would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition.
Tentatively, we conclude that there are fewer than 1,347 small
incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposals in this NPRM. We
seek comment on this conclusion.
27. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements: In Section V of this NPRM, we request comment
on whether LECs should be required to file with their tariffs a summary
of the proposed tariff revisions and an analysis showing that the
revisions are lawful under applicable rules. These obligations would
arise any time a LEC files a tariff revision. We are unable to estimate
the number of times LECs would file tariffs annually, but it could vary
from none to 20 or more, for a limited number of carriers. We estimate,
however, that, on average, it would take approximately three hours for
the LECs to prepare the tariff summary and the analysis at a cost of
$80 per hour in professional level and support staff salaries. In
addition, LECs subject to price cap regulation would be required to
file their tariff review plans (TRP) prior to the filing of their
annual tariff revisions. This proposal would not impose a significant
burden on the LECs because they currently file TRPs, although at the
time they file their annual access tariff. Adoption of this proposal
would require that the carriers allocate the resources needed to
complete the TRPs prior to their filing of the annual access tariffs.
In order to comply with these proposed requirements, carriers would
need to utilize tariff analysts and legal and accounting personnel. We
believe that entities subject to these requirements have the personnel
necessary to meet these requirements since LECs are already required to
utilize staff with skills necessary to establish tariffs that comply
with Sections 201-205 of the Communications Act. If adopted, these
proposals would constitute new reporting requirements, but we believe
they are justified in order to assure compliance with Sections 201-205
of the Communications Act. We seek comment on the impact of these
proposals on small entities.
28. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Small Entities and Small Incumbent LECs, and Alternatives
Considered. We believe that our proposed actions to implement the
specific streamlining requirements of Section 204(a)(3) of the
Communications Act as well as additional steps for streamlining the
tariff process minimizes the economic impact on all LEC carriers that
are eligible for streamline regulation. For example, our proposal to
establish a program for the electronic filing of tariffs will reduce
the existing economic
[[Page 49992]]
burden on carriers who are now required to file paper tariffs with the
Commission.
29. We have considered the alternative of not requiring the LECs to
submit the information noted above. We believe, however, that these
proposals would not impose a significant burden on price cap carriers
and that the minimal burden resulting from these proposals is
outweighed by the Commission's need to fulfill its statutory duties. We
seek comment on this tentative conclusion and any other potential
impact of these proposals on small business entities.
30. Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with these
Rules: None.
C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This NPRM contains proposed or modified information collections
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are
invited to comment on the proposed or modified information collections
contained in this proceeding.
D. Comment Filing Procedures
In order to facilitate review of comments and reply comments, by
both parties and Commission staff, we require that comments be no
longer than 40 pages for comments and 20 pages for replies. Comments
and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the
substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply
comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and all other applicable
sections of the Commission's rules. We also direct all interested
parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the
filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. Comments and
reply comments also must clearly identify the specific portion of this
NPRM to which a particular comment or set of comments is responsive. If
a portion of a party's comments does not fall under a particular topic
listed in the NPRM, such comments must be included in a clearly
labelled section at the beginning or end of the filing. Parties may not
file more than a total of ten (10) pages of ex parte submissions,
excluding cover letters. This 10 page limit does not include: (1)
Written ex parte filings made solely to disclose an oral ex parte
contact; (2) written material submitted at the time of an oral
presentation to Commission staff that provides a brief outline of the
presentation; (3) written material filed in response to direct requests
from commission staff, or (4) any proposed rule language. Ex parte
filings in excess of this limit will not be considered as part of the
record in this proceeding.
Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on
diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a
substitute for the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties
submitting diskettes should submit them to Jerry McKoy of the Common
Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 518, Washington, D.C. 20554.
Such a submissions should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM
compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software. The
diskette should be submitted in ``read only'' mode and should be
clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading
(comment or reply comments) and date of submission. The diskette should
be accompanied by a cover letter.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the information collections contained herein should be
submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room
234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB,
725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to
fain__t@al.eop.gov.
VII. Ordering Clauses
31. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1 and 4
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 and 154, a
notice of proposed rulemaking is hereby adopted and that comment is
sought on the issues contained therein. Interested parties may file
comments on or before October, 9, 1996, and reply comments on or before
October 24, 1996.
32. It is further ordered that, the Secretary shall send a copy of
this NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking, including the regulatory
certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, in accordance with Paragraph 605(b) and Paragraph
603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat.
114, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq (1981).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 69
Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Shirley S. Suggs,
Chief, Publications Branch.
[FR Doc. 96-24464 Filed 9-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
