[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58510-58513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25324]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 61

[WC Docket Nos. 17-308, 18-276; FCC 18-142]


Elimination of Outdated Tariff-Related Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to eliminate outdated tariff-related 
requirements that provide little benefit while imposing burdens on 
carriers.

DATES: Comments are due on or before December 20, 2018. Reply comments 
are due on or before January 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on 
or before the dates indicated in the DATES section this document. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    [cir] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    [cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Cohn, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at 202-418-1540 or at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal 
Communications Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released 
October 18, 2018. A full text copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
may be obtained at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-waives-and-seeks-comment-eliminating-obsolete-tariff-rules.

[[Page 58511]]

I. Discussion

A. Amending the Cross-Referencing Rule

    1. In light of the public's ability to access online all tariffs 
filed with the Commission through the Electronic Tariff Filing System 
(ETFS) on our website, we propose to amend our cross-referencing rule 
to allow a carrier to refer to its own tariff and the tariffs of its 
affiliated companies in its tariff publications. We seek comment on 
this proposal.
    2. The cross-referencing rule provides that, subject to certain 
exceptions, no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make 
reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or 
instrument. The rule was adopted more than 75 years ago when tariffs 
were filed in hard copy with the Commission and reviewing them was time 
consuming and expensive. As the Commission explained in 1984, 
``[c]onfusion may result if references to other tariffs are allowed 
since all important information will not be consolidated in one place 
and references may be incomplete. In addition, referenced documents may 
not be easily accessible to the public.'' We seek comment on whether 
those concerns are as legitimate today, as they were in past decades. 
Does the fact that all interstate tariffs are now filed electronically 
and are available to the public on our website alleviate concerns about 
the confusion that may result from a carrier cross-referencing its own 
or an affiliate's tariffs? Does the nature of the cross-referencing 
rule as essentially a procedural requirement adopted decades ago 
counsel in favor of its modification at this juncture, given the 
passage of time since its adoption and the changed circumstances due to 
technological advances that make tariff information more publicly and 
readily accessible?
    3. We also seek comment on the burden to a carrier of complying 
with the prohibition on cross-referencing its own and its affiliates' 
tariffs. Currently, a carrier seeking to cross-reference its own 
tariffs can use the ``special permission'' procedures set forth in our 
rules, which require submission of an application requesting a one-time 
waiver of the rule. The Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureau) 
routinely grants such waivers and as a practical matter those waivers 
do not appear to have resulted in any negative consequences. In their 
waiver requests, both Verizon and AT&T argue that the current process 
requiring a carrier to obtain special permission each time it seeks to 
refer to its own tariffs is unduly burdensome. Do other commenters 
agree? What are the costs and benefits of requiring a carrier to follow 
the procedural rule of getting special permission to refer to its own 
or an affiliate's tariff in a tariff publication?
    4. We invite commenters to identify any other costs and benefits of 
amending the cross-referencing rule to allow a carrier to refer to its 
own or an affiliate's tariff publications in its tariffs. Are there any 
disadvantages to permitting carriers' tariffs to include cross-
references to their own or an affiliate's tariffs? Are there any 
different approaches we should take to this issue?
    5. Consistent with the general approach of the cross-referencing 
rule and with the approach recommended by some stakeholders, our 
proposed amendments to the cross-referencing rule would apply to all 
carriers that file tariffs. We seek comment on this approach. Are there 
reasons to exclude particular types of carriers from application of the 
proposed rule revision?

B. Eliminating Advance Filing of Materials That Support Interstate 
Access Tariffs

    6. We propose to eliminate, as no longer necessary and unduly 
burdensome, the provision in our rules requiring price cap incumbent 
LECs to file short form tariff review plans 90 days before their access 
tariffs are due. We seek comment on this proposal.
    7. Eliminating the short form tariff review plan requirement is 
consistent with the Commission's past efforts to reduce the burden of 
tariff filings on price cap LECs while ensuring Commission staff and 
the public have sufficient information about such tariffs in advance of 
their effective date. Before 1997, the Commission required LECs to file 
their interstate access tariff revisions 90 days before the effective 
date of those tariffs, which gave the Commission staff and stakeholders 
a substantial amount of time to review those tariffs before they became 
effective. Pursuant to section 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended (Act), the Commission modified its rules to permit 
tariff filings on a streamlined basis on either seven days' notice (for 
rate reductions) or 15 days' notice (for rate increases). At the same 
time, in light of the shortened time for review and the high volume and 
complexity of tariff filings it was receiving, the Commission adopted a 
requirement that price cap carriers file supporting information, 
without rate data, 90 days in advance of the annual access tariff 
filing to allow the public and Commission staff the opportunity to 
review that information well in advance of the actual tariff filing.
    8. Typically, price cap carriers have satisfied the requirement to 
file material supporting their interstate access tariffs 90 days in 
advance of their tariff filings by filing standardized short form 
tariff review plans. The standardized short form tariff review plans 
are spreadsheets that detail exogenous cost adjustments that price cap 
LECs intend to make to their price cap indices. For example, price cap 
carriers make exogenous cost adjustments related to: (1) Regulatory 
fees; (2) Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) expenses; (3) excess 
deferred taxes; and (4) North American Numbering Plan Administration 
(NANPA) expenses.
    9. Over the last few years, the Bureau has found that the 
information needed to populate the short form tariff review plans is 
often not available when the short form tariff review plans are due. To 
address the insufficiency of available information, by waiver the 
Bureau reduced the time period for filing short form tariff review 
plans: first to 60 days prior to the annual access charge tariff filing 
and then to 45 days prior to the annual access charge tariff filing. 
For the 2017 and 2018 tariff filing years, the Bureau waived the short 
form tariff review plan filing requirement altogether because some of 
the factors needed to calculate exogenous cost adjustments for 
regulatory fees and TRS and NANPA expenses were not going to be 
available prior to the short form tariff review plan filing deadline. 
The Bureau found that absent such information the short form tariff 
review plans would provide little value to the Commission, industry, 
and consumers. Also, over the last decade, the Commission has taken a 
variety of deregulatory actions, including access charge reform and the 
grant of forbearance to price cap LECs from dominant carrier regulation 
for their newer packet-based and higher bandwidth services, that have 
resulted in a decline in the number of interstate access tariff filings 
as the scope of services subject to price cap regulation has narrowed.
    10. We seek comment on our proposal to stop requiring the filing of 
materials supporting price cap LECs' interstate access tariffs 90 days 
in advance of their tariff filings. In both 2017 and 2018, this 
requirement was waived by the Bureau and it does not appear that the 
Bureau waivers have interfered with the ability of interested 
stakeholders to review the price cap LECs' more extensive tariff review 
plans filed with their annual access charge tariff filings in advance 
of the July 1 effective date. However, we seek comment on whether in 
previous

[[Page 58512]]

years there was a benefit to stakeholders of the short form tariff 
review plan filings that we should consider? Were there any negative 
effects of either shortening the filing deadline for short form tariff 
review plans or waiving the short form tariff review plan requirement 
entirely? Does the decline in the number of interstate access tariff 
filings due to regulatory changes provide an additional basis for 
eliminating the short form tariff review plan requirement?
    11. We also seek comment on the burden of filing the short form 
tariff review plans. What were the costs to filers that had to file 
short form tariff review plans in previous years? The same exogenous 
cost information collected in the short form tariff review plans is 
also required in the long form tariff review plans submitted 15 days 
before the annual access tariff filing. Is submission of the same 
information twice unduly burdensome? Are there benefits to price cap 
carriers from filing the short form tariff review plans? What would be 
the practical consequences of eliminating the short form tariff review 
plan requirement? Should carriers be given the option to file the short 
form tariff review plan or should the rule be completely eliminated? 
Finally, we seek comment on whether there are alternatives to 
eliminating the rule that the Commission should consider.

C. Implementing the Proposed Rule Changes

    12. We seek comment on the timing for making the changes to our 
part 61 rules proposed herein. We propose an effective date that is 
thirty (30) days following publication of any revised rules in the 
Federal Register, which will effectuate application of any such rules 
in a timely manner. We invite parties to comment on this proposal and 
to explain the implications of different effective dates for any 
changes we make to our part 61 rules. We further note that none of the 
rule modifications proposed herein would affect either the Commission's 
authority to reject, suspend, and investigate particular tariff filings 
or parties' ability to challenge a tariff filing on the grounds that it 
is unjust and unreasonable. Do commenters have input on these or other 
issues related to the legal ramifications or implementation of the 
proposed rule amendments?

II. Procedural Matters

    13. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates 
indicated in the DATES section of this document.
    14. Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this NPRM initiates 
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance 
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte 
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list 
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at 
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec.  1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) or for which the Commission 
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
    15. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document eliminates, and thus 
does not contain new or revised, information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 
``information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002.
    16. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, requires agencies to prepare 
a regulatory flexibility analysis for rulemaking proceedings, unless 
the agency certifies that ``the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA 
generally defines ``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 
Small Business Administration (SBA).
    17. In this NPRM, we propose to amend two of the Commission's rules 
applicable to tariffs, Sec. Sec.  61.49(k) and 61.74(a), in order to 
minimize burdens associated with such rules and as part of the 
Commission's efforts to reduce unnecessary regulations that no longer 
serve the public interest. These proposed revisions to Sec.  61.49(k) 
only impact price cap LECs for the services that continue to be 
tariffed and any impact of these rule changes is minor, while the 
proposed revisions to Sec.  61.74(a) are procedural in nature and the 
impact is likewise minor. Therefore, we certify that the proposals in 
this NPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    18. The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including a copy 
of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The initial certification will also be 
published in the Federal Register.
    19. Contact Person. For further information regarding this 
proceeding, contact Robin Cohn, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1540, or [email protected].

III. Ordering Clauses

    20. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-205, 215, 218, and 220 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
201-05, 215, 218, 220, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    21. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief

[[Page 58513]]

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 61

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and record keeping 
requirements, Tariffs, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend part 61 of title 47 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 61--TARIFFS

0
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 403, unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  61.49  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  61.49 by removing and reserving paragraph (k).
0
3. Amend Sec.  61.74 by redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e) as 
paragraphs (c) through (f) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  61.74  References to other instruments.

* * * * *
    (b) Tariff publications filed by a carrier may reference other 
tariff publications filed by that carrier or its affiliates.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-25324 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P