[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50141-50146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18550]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 69

[WC Docket No. 04-259; RM-10603; FCC 04-174]


National Exchange Carrier Association Petition

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: By this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) initiates a rulemaking proceeding to examine the proper 
number of end user common line charges (commonly referred to as 
subscriber line charges or SLCs) that carriers may assess upon 
customers that obtain derived channel T-1 service where the customer 
provides the terminating channelization equipment and upon customers 
that obtain Primary Rate Interface (PRI) Integrated Service Digital 
Network (ISDN) service.

DATES: Comments due on or before October 12, 2004, and reply comments 
due on or before November 12, 2004.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, 
Marlene H. Dortch, 445 12th Street, SW., TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554. 
Parties should also send a copy of their paper filings to Jeremy D. 
Marcus, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 5-A230, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. Parties shall also serve one copy with the 
Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy D. Marcus, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 418-0059.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket No. 04-259, RM-10603, FCC 
04-174, adopted on July 14, 2004, and released on July 19, 2004. The 
full text of this document is available on the Commission's Web site 
Electronic Comment Filing System and for public inspection Monday 
through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 
11:30 a.m. in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available to persons 
with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY 
(202) 418-7365. The full text of the NPRM may also be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 
488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or e-mail [email protected], or via 
its Web site at http://www.bcpiweb.com.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    1. This document does not contain proposed information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 
104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed 
information collection burden ``for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Introduction

    2. This NPRM, adopted July 14, 2004, and released July 19, 2004, in 
WC Docket No. 04-259, RM-10603, FCC 04-174, initiates a proceeding to 
examine the proper number of SLCs that rate-of-return and price cap 
carriers may assess upon customers that obtain derived channel T-1 
service where the customer provides the terminating channelization 
equipment and upon customers that obtain PRI ISDN service.
    3. The Commission's rules specify that carriers must assess one SLC 
``per line,'' which is defined to mean per channel. For derived channel 
T-1 services, therefore, one SLC currently is assessed for each derived 
channel (i.e., up to 24 channels per T-1) provided to the customer.
    4. In 1997 in the Access Charge Reform First Report and Order, 62 
FR 31868, June 11, 1997, the Commission modified the SLC rules for 
loops used to provide Basic Rate Interface (BRI) ISDN and PRI ISDN 
services for price cap carriers. Specifically, the Commission created 
exceptions to the general rule that one SLC be assessed for each 
channel of service provided, finding that a single SLC may be assessed 
for a loop used to provide BRI ISDN service, and that up to five SLCs 
may be assessed for a loop used to provide PRI ISDN service. In 2001, 
in the MAG Order, 66 FR 57919, November 30, 2001, the Commission 
adopted identical rule changes for rate-of-return carriers.

Background

    5. On September 26, 2002, the National Exchange Carrier 
Association, Inc. (NECA) filed a petition for rulemaking requesting 
that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to modify the 
rules governing the assessment of the SLC for derived channel T-1 
services where the customer provides the terminating channelization 
equipment. Specifically, NECA proposed modifying section 69.104(p) of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 69.104(p), to permit rate-of-return 
carrier to assess no more than five SLCs on customers of derived 
channel T-1 services. Verizon has requested that any rule change be 
applied as well to price cap carriers for new T-1 service offerings.
    6. NECA and other local exchange carriers and carrier associations 
claim that the proposed rule changes are necessary to bring SLC 
assessments

[[Page 50142]]

more in line with costs because treating derived channel T-1 services 
differently from PRI ISDN services creates artificial price incentives 
that favor PRI ISDN services over derived channel T-1 services.
    7. NECA proposed recovering revenue lost due to the reduction in 
the number of SLCs assessed through the development of a port charge 
and through an increase in the interstate common line support universal 
service fund (ICLS).

Discussion

    8. The Commission initiates this NPRM to examine the assessment of 
SLCs on derived channel T-1 services where the customer provides the 
terminating channelization equipment. We find that our current rules, 
which require the assessment of 24 SLCs for these derived channel T-1 
services, may be inconsistent with the Commission's long-standing 
efforts to align rates with costs. We also find it appropriate to re-
examine our earlier finding, based on Bell Operating Companies' cost 
studies from the mid-1990s, that up to five SLCs may be assessed on 
customers of PRI ISDN service. Our examination of these issues will 
encompass both rate-of-return and price cap carriers.
    9. We request that any party that proposes the Commission change 
the SLC rules include in its comments the specific language of its 
requested rule change(s).
    10. Cost of provisioning and Cost Studies. We tentatively conclude 
that the number of SLCs that may be assessed on customers of derived 
channel T-1 service where the customer provides the terminating 
channelization equipment should be based on the actual common line cost 
relationship between these services. We seek comment on this tentative 
conclusion.
    11. We seek comment on the actual common line cost relationship 
between derived channel T-1 service and basic analog service, and ask 
parties asserting a particular cost relationship to support their 
claims with a cost study showing the common line costs for derived 
channel T-1 service and basic, analog service, respectively. The cost 
studies should be sufficiently detailed to enable us to discern the 
common line cost relationship between these services with reasonable 
accuracy.
    12. We also seek comment on the current relationship between PRI 
ISDN common line costs and basic, analog common line costs. We ask 
parties asserting a particular cost relationship to support their 
claims with a cost study showing the common line costs for PRI ISDN 
service and basic, analog service, respectively. The cost studies 
should be sufficiently detailed to enable us to discern the common line 
cost relationship between these services with reasonable accuracy.
    13. We ask that all cost studies include all of the underlying data 
used in the study, as well as the source(s) of the data, and clearly 
identify all of the assumptions made and formulas used. In particular, 
we ask parties to identify clearly all of the demand and growth 
assumptions reflected in their cost studies. In order to facilitate 
review by other parties and Commission staff, all cost studies should 
be fully transparent and verifiable. To the extent that a party expects 
to include confidential or proprietary data in a cost study, it may 
seek a protective order.
    14. Impact of Network Architecture. We seek comment on the network 
architectures that carriers use to provide derived channel T-1 and PRI 
ISDN services. For example, in addition to using short copper loops, 
are carriers using fiber-based digital loop carrier systems to provide 
these services? Are carriers providing these services using all fiber 
loops, fiber to the premises, or other fiber-based loop architectures? 
Commenters should identify clearly the loop network architectures that 
they use to provide derived channel T-1 service, PRI ISDN service, and 
basic, analog service, including the relative frequency with which they 
deploy different architectures to provide these services. Commenters 
should also identify whether and, if so, why the loop architectures and 
their relative deployment frequencies are different from those used in 
their cost studies. We further request that commenters identify the key 
factors they consider to determine which loop network architecture(s) 
to deploy to provide derived channel T-1, PRI ISDN, and basic, analog 
services.
    15. We seek comment on whether we should establish different rules 
for different loop architectures. Do variations in cost relationships 
resulting from the use of different architectures support different SLC 
assessment rules reflecting these cost relationships? For example, what 
incentives might different SLC assessment rules create regarding the 
deployment of efficient loop technologies? If we conclude that cost 
disparities among different network architectures counsel against 
adoption of SLC assessment rules based on relative cost relationships, 
are there alternative means of aligning common line costs with SLC cost 
recovery rules?
    16. We also seek comment on whether carriers might incur different 
costs in providing derived channel T-1, PRI ISDN, and basic, analog 
services, even if those services use the same loop architectures. For 
example, are copper loops used to provide T-1 or PRI ISDN services 
shorter or longer, on average, than copper loops used to provide basic, 
analog services? Do derived channel T-1 or PRI ISDN loops cause 
interference when they share cables with loops providing other 
services? Should factors like these affect our analysis? If so, we seek 
comment on the effect of any such factors on the costs and relative 
costs of loops used to provide these different services.
    17. We also seek comment on the relationship between loop costs for 
derived channel T-1 loops and the loop costs of T-1 special access 
services. To the extent that these costs differ, we ask parties to 
explain in detail the causes of such variances.
    18. Line Port Charges. Carriers assess a separate line port charge 
for ISDN line ports, and for other line ports, to the extent that the 
costs of these line ports exceed the costs of line ports used for 
basic, analog service. See 47 CFR 69.130, 69.157. We ask parties to 
identify with specificity the amount of (as well as the methodology 
used to calculate) the port charge that they would expect to assess for 
the port associated with derived channel T-1 service, as well as the 
amount (and calculation methodology) of the PRI ISDN port charge they 
currently assess upon end user customers. Carriers should include in 
their comments the amount of the port charge that they may have 
developed prior to the comment date. More generally, we ask parties to 
comment on the principles that should be used to determine whether a 
cost should be included in the basic common line costs recovered 
through the SLC or in the line port costs recovered through the 
separate line port charge.
    19. Impact on ICLS and Other Universal Service Issues. ICLS seeks 
to ensure that each rate-of-return carrier continues to provide 
affordable, quality telecommunications services to its customers while 
also recovering its common line revenue requirement. We recognize that 
assessing fewer than 24 SLCs for derived channel T-1 services will tend 
to decrease each carrier's revenues from SLCs and increase its ICLS. We 
seek comment on whether this is consistent with the goals of universal 
service.
    20. We seek comment from on the effect that changes in the SLC 
assessment rules for PRI ISDN and for derived channel T-1 services 
(including the development of any new port charges for derived channel 
T-1 service)

[[Page 50143]]

will have on ICLS. We ask parties to quantify the changes in the size 
of ICLS that they would expect as a result of possible rule changes 
that would alter the number of SLCs assessed for PRI ISDN service or 
for derived channel T-1 service. Parties should clearly identify the 
methodology used to perform such a calculation. In particular, parties 
should identify any changes in the demand for these services that would 
result from changing the SLC assessment rules and should identify how 
demand assumptions are used in their cost study calculations. With 
regard to changes to ICLS resulting from any SLC assessment rule 
change, we expect that the parties' demand assumptions will differ from 
current demand figures and we ask parties to identify clearly the 
current demand figures, the anticipated demand figures associated with 
the proposed rule changes, and the basis for changes in demand 
assumptions resulting from any rule changes.
    21. We also seek comment on the implications of rule changes for 
other universal service issues. Commenters should address the effect of 
rule changes on competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) 
and the portability of universal service under our current ETC and 
portability rules. See 47 CFR 54.307. In particular, we seek comment on 
whether, pursuant to any rule change, competitive ETCs should report 24 
lines for derived channel T-1 services or should report the same number 
of lines for these services that the incumbent LECs are required to 
report. Commenters should also address whether changing the method of 
developing line counts will affect universal service support 
mechanisms.
    22. Impact on PICC, CCLC, and Retail Rates. We seek comment on the 
effect that changes in the SLC assessment rules for PRI ISDN and for 
derived channel T-1 services (including the development of any new port 
charges for derived channel T-1 service) will have on the multi-line 
business (MLB) primary interexchange carrier charge (PICC) and carrier 
common line charge (CCLC). To the extent that we modify the SLC 
assessment rule for derived channel T-1 service so that the number of 
SLCs assessed for this service is no longer based on the number of 
lines (i.e., channels), should we also modify the PICC rule to make the 
same change? Should SLC or PICC rules for price cap carriers 
distinguish between new and existing T-1 services? If we change the SLC 
and PICC assessment rules, should we also modify the maximum CMT 
revenues per line permitted under section 61.3(d) of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 61.3(d)?
    23. Commenting price cap carriers should also identify the new SLC 
(both residential and single line business (RES/SLB) and MLB), MLB 
PICC, and CCLC rates that would result from their proposals. Parties 
should identify clearly the methodology used to perform such 
calculations. We ask parties to quantify, based on their individual 
proposals, the amount of foregone SLC revenues (on an annualized basis) 
that they expect to recover from the MLB PICC and CCLC.
    24. Commenting carriers that currently assess the SLC at rates 
below the SLC cap(s) should identify the increase in the level of the 
SLCs they assess (both RES/SLB and MLB) that would result from their 
desired rule change(s).
    25. We seek comment on whether setting the number of SLCs that may 
be assessed equal to the common line cost ratio between derived channel 
T-1 or PRI ISDN and basic, analog service may result in MLB customers 
paying less than the full common line costs, with carriers having to 
recoup the shortfall from ICLS (for rate of return carriers) or from 
the MLB PICC and CCLC (for price cap carriers). We seek comment on 
whether such a result is consistent with our policy goals and, if not, 
we ask parties to propose an alternative that would result in all of 
the common line costs, but no more, for these services being recovered 
from MLB customers.
    26. We also seek comment on the effect of any proposed rule changes 
on all classes (i.e., residential, SLB, MLB) of end user customers. We 
ask parties that propose changes to the SLC assessment rules for 
customers of derived channel T-1 service to identify with specificity 
the rate change(s), both interstate and intrastate, that would result 
for customers of this service. Parties should identify the aggregate 
rate change(s) for these customers, and should further identify the 
changes that would result from Commission rule changes, and any changes 
in intrastate rates that the commenter anticipates would result. In 
light of the waiver we grant herein, we ask that rate-of-return 
carriers identify with specificity the changes that they may have made 
by the comment date to the rates for their derived channel T-1 service.
    27. Other Matters. Finally, for good cause shown, we grant an 
interim, partial waiver of rule 69.104(q), 47 CFR 69.104(q), permitting 
rate-of-return carriers to assess SLCs for only five channels upon 
customers subscribing to derived channel T-1 service where the customer 
provides the terminating channelization equipment without foregoing 
recovery of the associated SLC revenues from ICLS. The waiver is 
interim and will remain in place only until we resolve the issues 
raised in the NPRM, at which time the waiver will expire. Carriers 
subject to this waiver order, when filing line count data pursuant to 
the Commission's rules, shall calculate their line counts in a manner 
consistent with this order. Competitive ETCs, which are not subject to 
this order, shall continue to file line count data using the existing 
assessment of 24 loops per derived channel T-1 service.

Procedural Matters

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this present 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 
190 Stat. 867 (1996). Written public comments are requested on this 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments provided below. The Commission will 
send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 
603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    29. In this NPRM, the Commission continues to explore means of 
better aligning cost recovery (i.e., rates) with the manner in which 
costs are incurred. SLCs are generally assessed by carriers on 
customers on a per channel basis. In 1997 in the Access Charge Reform 
First Report and Order, 62 FR 31868, June 11, 1997, the Commission 
created an exception to the SLC assessment rules for price cap carriers 
for PRI ISDN and BRI ISDN services, determining that five SLCs could be 
assessed for PRI ISDN service and one SLC could be assessed for BRI 
ISDN service. In 2001 in the MAG Order, 66 FR 57919, November 30, 2001, 
the Commission made the equivalent rule changes for rate-of-return 
carriers.

[[Page 50144]]

    30. NECA requests that we amend the Commission's SLC assessment 
rules to reduce the number of SLCs from twenty-four to five that 
carriers may assess upon customers of derived channel T-1 services 
(where the customer provides the terminating channelization equipment), 
with carriers recovering the foregone SLC revenues from a line port 
charge and from ICLS. This NPRM tentatively concludes that the number 
of SLCs that carriers may assess on customers of derived channel T-1 
service (where the customer provides the terminating channelization 
equipment) should be based on the actual common line cost relationship 
between loops used to provide these services and loops used to provide 
basic, analog services, rather than on a per channel basis. We seek 
comment on this conclusion. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether the PRI ISDN exception to the general ISLC assessment rules 
should be modified. The Commission also requests that parties detail 
the affects their proposals will have on line port charges, ICLS and 
other universal service mechanisms, other access charges (i.e., the 
PICC and the CCLC), and retail rates. The Commission requests that 
commenting parties provide detailed, transparent cost studies to 
support their proposals.

Legal Basis

    31. This rulemaking action is supported by sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
4(j), 201-205, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), (j), 201-205, and 303.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the 
Notice Will Apply

    32. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``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. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    33. In this section, we further describe and estimate the number of 
small entity licensees and regulatees that may also be directly 
affected by rules adopted in this order. The most reliable source of 
information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and 
related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial 
wireless entities, appears to be the data that the Commission publishes 
in its Trends in Telephone Service report. The SBA has developed small 
business size standards for wireline and wireless small businesses 
within the three commercial census categories of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, Paging, and Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications. Under these categories, a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using the above size standards and 
others, we discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that 
might be affected by our actions.
    34. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA 
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a wired telecommunications carrier having 1,500 or fewer 
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The 
SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included 
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that 
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations 
in other, non-RFA contexts.
    35. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 
which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in 
this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
2,201 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 
24 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
    36. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange 
services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to 
Commission data, 1,337 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,337 carriers, an 
estimated 1,032 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 305 have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most 
providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that 
may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    37. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access 
Providers (CAPs), and ``Other Local Exchange Carriers.'' Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to providers of competitive exchange 
services or to competitive access providers or to ``Other Local 
Exchange Carriers,'' all of which are discrete categories under which 
TRS data are collected. The closest applicable size standard under SBA 
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 609 companies reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services 
or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 609 companies, 
an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 151 have more than 
1,500 employees. In addition, 35 carriers reported that they were 
``Other Local Service Providers.'' Of the 35 ``Other Local Service 
Providers,'' an estimated 34 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has 
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive 
access providers, and ``Other Local Exchange Carriers'' are small 
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    38. The NPRM explores options for further aligning SLC rates with 
loop costs in the Commission's access charge regime and examines the 
universal service implications of any such SLC rule changes. The NPRM 
considers the varying operating circumstances of rate-of-return and 
price cap carriers, the implications of competitive and intrastate 
regulatory conditions on the options available, and the need to 
facilitate and ensure the deployment of advanced services in rural 
America. If adopted, changes to the Commission's SLC assessment rules 
may require additional or modified recordkeeping.

[[Page 50145]]

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    40. We will consider any proposals made to minimize significant 
economic impact on small entities. The overall objective of this 
proceeding is to consider the NECA proposal, as well as other 
proposals, that may better align rates with costs by amending the 
Commission's SLC assessment rules for PRI ISDN service and for derived 
channel T-1 services (where the customer provides the terminating 
channelization equipment). The NPRM seeks comment on the merits of 
changes in the SLC assessment rules. Comments should be supported by 
specific economic analysis and cost studies. The adoption of rule 
changes may require LECs to amend their end user tariffs. To the extent 
that the Commission may adopt rule changes that better enable small 
rate-of-return carriers to compete in offering advanced services, such 
carriers may stand to benefit from this proceeding.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    41. None.

Ex Parte Presentations

    42. This proceeding will continue to be governed by ``permit-but-
disclose'' ex parte procedures that are applicable to non-restricted 
proceedings. See 47 CFR 1.1206. Parties making oral ex parte 
presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation 
must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not 
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one-or two-
sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is 
required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are 
set forth in section 1.1206(b) as well. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 
Interested parties are to file any written ex parte presentations in 
this proceeding with the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, 445 
12th Street, SW., TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554, and serve with one 
copy: Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room 5-A452, Washington, DC 20554, Attn: Jeremy D. Marcus. 
Parties shall also serve with one copy: Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 
telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, e-mail 
[email protected], or via its Web site http://www.bcpiweb.com.

Comment Filing Procedures

    43. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 
60 days and reply comments on or before 90 days after publication of 
this NPRM in the Federal Register. All pleadings must reference WC 
Docket No. 04-259 and RM-10603. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 
copies. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Generally, only 
one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket 
or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, 
however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments 
to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In 
completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full 
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or 
rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by 
Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, 
commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include 
the following words in the body of the message: ``get form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. 
Commenters also may obtain a copy of the ASCII Electronic Transmittal 
Form (FORM-ET) at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/email.html.
    44. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit 
two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
    45. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, 
Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper 
filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, 
NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location 
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before 
entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. 
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
    46. Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or 
by paper, parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in 
this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, 
telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, e-mail 
[email protected], or via its Web site at http://www.bcpiweb.com. In 
addition, one copy of each submission must be filed with the Chief, 
Pricing Policy Division, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 
Documents filed in this proceeding will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the Commission's Reference 
Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, and 
will be placed on the Commission's Internet site. For further 
information, contact Jeremy D. Marcus at (202) 418-0059.
    47. Accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio 
recording and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by 
contacting the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-
0531, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at [email protected].

Ordering Clauses

    48. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in section 1.407 of the commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.407, the 
National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking is 
granted.
    49. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, and 303 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 
and 303, notice is hereby given of the rulemaking

[[Page 50146]]

described above and comment is sought on those issues.
    50. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer 
Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
    51. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), and 201-205 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205 and 47 CFR 1.3, the joint petition 
for expedited waiver is granted to the extent stated herein.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-18550 Filed 8-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P