[Federal Register: August 13, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 156)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50141-50146]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13au04-25]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 fcc@bcpiweb.com, 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
fcc@bcpiweb.com, 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 ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include
the following words in the body of the message: ``get form < your e-mail
address>.'' 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
fcc@bcpiweb.com, 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 fcc504@fcc.gov.
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