[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 [email protected].

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 
[email protected] and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 
725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

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