[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Elimination of Outdated Tariff-Related Requirements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SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to eliminate outdated tariff-related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