Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Tariff Streamlining Provisions for Local Exchange Carriers)

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