[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 12, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77545-77546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31713]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 61 and 69

[CC Docket No. 96-262; DA 00-2751]


CLEC Access Charge Reform

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document seeks additional comment in connection with an 
ongoing FCC proceeding considering whether and how to reform the manner 
in which competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) may tariff the 
charges for the switched local exchange access service that they 
provide to inter-exchange carriers (IXCs). Specifically, it seeks 
comment on the possibility of a rural exemption to a benchmarking 
mechanism under consideration and information about the level of CLEC 
access charges.

DATES: Submit comment on or before December 27, 2000.
    Submit reply comments on or before January 11, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth St., SW., 
Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Or comments may be filed 
electronically via the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott K. Bergmann, 202-418-0940, or 
Jeffrey H. Dygert, 202-418-1500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCC's Common Carrier Bureau (the Bureau) 
seeks comment on the following issues.
    Scope of a Rural Exemption to Benchmarked Rates: Many of the 
comments previously submitted in the access charge reform docket have 
advocated establishing a benchmark for CLEC access charges so that 
charges at or below the benchmark would be presumed to be just and 
reasonable. These proposals have suggested a benchmark that could apply 
to a broad range of CLECs with widely varying cost characteristics and 
operating in many different markets.
    It may be problematic to limit all CLECs to a single benchmarked 
rate, regardless of the characteristics of the market that they serve. 
Thus, the Commission has previously raised the prospect that a 
benchmark might vary depending on whether the CLEC serves high cost 
areas or low cost areas. The Bureau seeks additional comment on whether 
and how to create a ``rural exemption'' that would prevent a CLEC 
operating in a rural or high-cost areas from being subject to a 
benchmark that may be more appropriate for CLECs doing business in more 
concentrated, urbanized areas. Is such an exemption necessary? How 
should the Commission define the types of areas in which such a rural 
exemption would be available to CLECs? Can the definition be premised 
on the Communications Act's definition of ``rural telephone company''? 
47 U.S.C. 154(37). Should the exemption apply to all areas that fall 
outside of the defined metropolitan statistical areas? Should the 
availability of a rural exemption turn instead on the overall 
population density within a particular CLEC's service area, or should 
it turn on the density of the CLEC's customers within its service area? 
If population density is the appropriate factor, commenters are 
requested to propose what density figure should serve as the cut-off 
for the availability of a rural exemption and to explain why that 
number is the appropriate one. Should the Commission tie such and 
exemption to the presence, within the CLEC's service area, of a town or 
incorporated place with a certain population? Should a CLEC be required 
to qualify for and receive rural or high-cost universal service support 
before it could avail itself of such a rural exemption?
    How should a rural exemption apply where, within a single service 
area, a CLEC serves customers that reside in areas of markedly 
different density? Is it feasible for a CLEC to charge different access 
rates within a single service area depending on the population density 
surrounding particular end users? Should the availability of such an 
exemption be determined by the actual location of a CLEC's customers or 
by the location of a CLEC's switch or some other portion of its 
network?
    Should a rural exemption be tied to the volume of access traffic 
generated by a CLEC's customers? Thus, should a

[[Page 77546]]

CLEC serving primarily or exclusively a large institution, or some 
other high-volume user, qualify for the rural exemption? Alternatively, 
should the availability of the rural exemption be tied to the number or 
type of a CLEC's customers? The Bureau also solicits any additional 
comments that may bear on the appropriate definition or limitation of a 
rural exemption to benchmark rates for CLEC access service. 
Specifically, comment is invited on the proposed definitions for a 
rural exemption submitted, as ex partes in this docket, by the Rural 
Independent Competitive Alliance and by Sprint Corporation.
    CLEC Access Rates: The Bureau seeks additional information on how 
CLEC access rates compare to ILEC rates. For example, should the multi-
line business presubscribed interexchange carrier charge (PICC) or 
other charges be included in ILEC access revenue when comparing 
incumbents' and competitors' rates for switched access service? 
Additional specific information is also sought on the level of CLEC 
access rates. Thus, for example, interested parties are requested to 
file with the Commission surveys or other data regarding the range of 
access charges imposed by either CLECs or ILECs.
    The Commission has previously conducted an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis relating to the issue of CLEC access charges. 
Pricing Flexibility Order and Notice, 64 FR 51280 (Sept. 22, 1999). The 
Bureau invites further comment on it at this time. Additionally, the 
Bureau invites comment on significant alternatives for the reform of 
CLEC access charges that would: establish different compliance 
requirements for small entities; clarify, consolidate or simplify 
compliance requirements for small entities; or exempt small entities 
from coverage.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 0

    Organization and functions.

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedures, Communications common 
carrier, telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 61

    Communications common carriers, Tariffs.

47 CFR Part 69

    Communications common carriers, Access charges.

Federal Communications Commission.
Shirley Suggs,
Chief, Publications Group.
[FR Doc. 00-31713 Filed 12-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M