83 FR 58510 - Elimination of Outdated Tariff-Related Requirements
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 224 (November 20, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 224 (November 20, 2018)
| Page Range | 58510-58513 | |
| FR Document | 2018-25324 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 58510-58513] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 61 [WC Docket Nos. 17-308, 18-276; FCC 18-142] Elimination of Outdated Tariff-Related Requirements AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to eliminate outdated tariff-related requirements that provide little benefit while imposing burdens on carriers.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
![58510 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
and ensuring that NRC resident transportation of a radioactively Electronic Comment Filing System
inspectors are notified of non- contaminated person, and (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
emergency events independent of the § 50.72(b)(3)(xiii) for major loss of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
requirements in § 50.72. The petitioner emergency assessment capability. 63 FR 24121 (1998).
states that ‘‘duplicative notifications Would the public release of licensee • Electronic Filers: Comments may be
under 10 CFR 50.72 serve no safety event reports alone meet your needs? filed electronically using the internet by
function and are not needed to prevent Please explain why or why not. accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/
or minimize possible injury to the 3. The petitioner asserts that the non- ecfs/.
public or to allow the NRC to take emergency notifications under § 50.72
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
necessary action.’’ ‘‘create unnecessary burdens for both
file by paper must file an original and
The petitioner suggests that in lieu of the licensee and the NRC staff, and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
the currently required notifications, the should be eliminated.’’ What specific
docket or rulemaking number appears in
NRC should establish guidance for the provisions in § 50.72, if any, do you
the caption of this proceeding, filers
resident inspectors that provides consider to be especially burdensome
must submit two additional copies for
consistent and standard expectations for (e.g., the timing requirements for
each additional docket or rulemaking
using the existing communication submittal of event notifications, certain
number.
protocols that have proven effective types of event notifications)? Please
from the site to the resident inspectors provide a supporting justification, as Æ Filings can be sent by hand or
and, from there, on to NRC appropriate. messenger delivery, by commercial
management. 4. The petitioner asserts that § 50.72 overnight courier, or by first-class or
The petitioner discusses the NRC’s non-emergency notifications are overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
stated purpose in promulgating the non- contrary to the best interests of the filings must be addressed to the
emergency event notification public and are contrary to the stated Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
requirements in § 50.72 by referring to purpose of the regulation. Do you agree Secretary, Federal Communications
final rules published in the Federal with this assertion? Please explain why Commission.
Register. The basis and purpose of the or why not. Æ All hand-delivered or messenger-
current requirements are primarily 5. Are there alternatives to the delivered paper filings for the
discussed in final rules published in the petitioner’s proposed changes that Commission’s Secretary must be
Federal Register on February 29, 1980 would address the concerns raised in delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
(45 FR 13434); August 29, 1983 (48 FR the petition while still providing timely 12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
39039); September 10, 1992 (57 FR event information to the NRC and the Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
41378); and October 25, 2000 (65 FR public? Please provide a detailed are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
63769).1 discussion of any suggested alternatives. deliveries must be held together with
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day rubber bands or fasteners. Any
V. Request for Comment envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of November, 2018.
The NRC staff is requesting the public For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. of before entering the building.
to consider the following specific Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Æ Commercial overnight mail (other
questions when commenting on this Secretary of the Commission. than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
petition: and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
[FR Doc. 2018–25273 Filed 11–19–18; 8:45 am]
1. The NRC publishes the event Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
notifications it receives from licensees 20701.
on the NRC’s public website every Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class,
weekday. Do you or does your Express, and Priority mail must be
organization regularly review these FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
event notifications? If so, please Washington DC 20554.
describe your use of this information
47 CFR Part 61 • People with Disabilities: To request
and explain how the elimination of all
materials in accessible formats for
non-emergency event notification [WC Docket Nos. 17–308, 18–276; FCC 18–
142] people with disabilities (braille, large
requirements would affect you or your
print, electronic files, audio format),
organization.
Elimination of Outdated Tariff-Related send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
2. If all non-emergency event
Requirements the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
notification requirements were removed
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
from § 50.72, the NRC would still AGENCY: Federal Communications 418–0432 (tty).
receive licensee event reports within 60 Commission.
days of discovery of the event as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ACTION: Proposed rule.
required by § 50.73 unless there is no Robin Cohn, Wireline Competition
corresponding § 50.73 report. These SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at 202–
reports typically contain a more detailed eliminate outdated tariff-related 418–1540 or at robin.cohn@fcc.gov.
account of the event and are released to requirements that provide little benefit SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
the public in ADAMS after receipt. while imposing burdens on carriers. summary of the Federal
There is no corresponding § 50.73 report DATES: Comments are due on or before Communications Commission’s Notice
for § 50.72(b)(2)(xi) for a news release or December 20, 2018. Reply comments are of Proposed Rulemaking released
notification to other government due on or before January 4, 2019. October 18, 2018. A full text copy of the
agencies, § 50.72(b)(3)(xii) for ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may be
1 These final rules are publicly available in the
comments and reply comments on or obtained at the following internet
Federal Register section of the U.S. Government
before the dates indicated in the DATES address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/
Publishing Office’s govinfo website: https:// section this document. Comments may fcc-waives-and-seeks-comment-
www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/fr. be filed using the Commission’s eliminating-obsolete-tariff-rules.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:19 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_58734/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 58511
I. Discussion burdensome. Do other commenters well in advance of the actual tariff
agree? What are the costs and benefits filing.
A. Amending the Cross-Referencing 8. Typically, price cap carriers have
of requiring a carrier to follow the
Rule satisfied the requirement to file material
procedural rule of getting special
1. In light of the public’s ability to permission to refer to its own or an supporting their interstate access tariffs
access online all tariffs filed with the affiliate’s tariff in a tariff publication? 90 days in advance of their tariff filings
Commission through the Electronic 4. We invite commenters to identify by filing standardized short form tariff
Tariff Filing System (ETFS) on our any other costs and benefits of review plans. The standardized short
website, we propose to amend our cross- amending the cross-referencing rule to form tariff review plans are spreadsheets
referencing rule to allow a carrier to allow a carrier to refer to its own or an that detail exogenous cost adjustments
refer to its own tariff and the tariffs of affiliate’s tariff publications in its tariffs. that price cap LECs intend to make to
its affiliated companies in its tariff Are there any disadvantages to their price cap indices. For example,
publications. We seek comment on this permitting carriers’ tariffs to include price cap carriers make exogenous cost
proposal. cross-references to their own or an adjustments related to: (1) Regulatory
2. The cross-referencing rule provides affiliate’s tariffs? Are there any different fees; (2) Telecommunications Relay
that, subject to certain exceptions, no approaches we should take to this issue? Service (TRS) expenses; (3) excess
tariff publication filed with the 5. Consistent with the general deferred taxes; and (4) North American
Commission may make reference to any approach of the cross-referencing rule Numbering Plan Administration
other tariff publication or to any other and with the approach recommended by (NANPA) expenses.
document or instrument. The rule was some stakeholders, our proposed 9. Over the last few years, the Bureau
adopted more than 75 years ago when amendments to the cross-referencing has found that the information needed
tariffs were filed in hard copy with the rule would apply to all carriers that file to populate the short form tariff review
Commission and reviewing them was tariffs. We seek comment on this plans is often not available when the
time consuming and expensive. As the approach. Are there reasons to exclude short form tariff review plans are due.
Commission explained in 1984, particular types of carriers from To address the insufficiency of available
‘‘[c]onfusion may result if references to application of the proposed rule information, by waiver the Bureau
other tariffs are allowed since all revision? reduced the time period for filing short
important information will not be form tariff review plans: first to 60 days
consolidated in one place and B. Eliminating Advance Filing of
prior to the annual access charge tariff
references may be incomplete. In Materials That Support Interstate
filing and then to 45 days prior to the
addition, referenced documents may not Access Tariffs
annual access charge tariff filing. For the
be easily accessible to the public.’’ We 6. We propose to eliminate, as no 2017 and 2018 tariff filing years, the
seek comment on whether those longer necessary and unduly Bureau waived the short form tariff
concerns are as legitimate today, as they burdensome, the provision in our rules review plan filing requirement
were in past decades. Does the fact that requiring price cap incumbent LECs to altogether because some of the factors
all interstate tariffs are now filed file short form tariff review plans 90 needed to calculate exogenous cost
electronically and are available to the days before their access tariffs are due. adjustments for regulatory fees and TRS
public on our website alleviate concerns We seek comment on this proposal. and NANPA expenses were not going to
about the confusion that may result 7. Eliminating the short form tariff be available prior to the short form tariff
from a carrier cross-referencing its own review plan requirement is consistent review plan filing deadline. The Bureau
or an affiliate’s tariffs? Does the nature with the Commission’s past efforts to found that absent such information the
of the cross-referencing rule as reduce the burden of tariff filings on short form tariff review plans would
essentially a procedural requirement price cap LECs while ensuring provide little value to the Commission,
adopted decades ago counsel in favor of Commission staff and the public have industry, and consumers. Also, over the
its modification at this juncture, given sufficient information about such tariffs last decade, the Commission has taken
the passage of time since its adoption in advance of their effective date. Before a variety of deregulatory actions,
and the changed circumstances due to 1997, the Commission required LECs to including access charge reform and the
technological advances that make tariff file their interstate access tariff revisions grant of forbearance to price cap LECs
information more publicly and readily 90 days before the effective date of those from dominant carrier regulation for
accessible? tariffs, which gave the Commission staff their newer packet-based and higher
3. We also seek comment on the and stakeholders a substantial amount bandwidth services, that have resulted
burden to a carrier of complying with of time to review those tariffs before in a decline in the number of interstate
the prohibition on cross-referencing its they became effective. Pursuant to access tariff filings as the scope of
own and its affiliates’ tariffs. Currently, section 204(a)(3) of the Communications services subject to price cap regulation
a carrier seeking to cross-reference its Act of 1934, as amended (Act), the has narrowed.
own tariffs can use the ‘‘special Commission modified its rules to permit 10. We seek comment on our proposal
permission’’ procedures set forth in our tariff filings on a streamlined basis on to stop requiring the filing of materials
rules, which require submission of an either seven days’ notice (for rate supporting price cap LECs’ interstate
application requesting a one-time reductions) or 15 days’ notice (for rate access tariffs 90 days in advance of their
waiver of the rule. The Wireline increases). At the same time, in light of tariff filings. In both 2017 and 2018, this
Competition Bureau (the Bureau) the shortened time for review and the requirement was waived by the Bureau
routinely grants such waivers and as a high volume and complexity of tariff and it does not appear that the Bureau
practical matter those waivers do not filings it was receiving, the Commission waivers have interfered with the ability
appear to have resulted in any negative adopted a requirement that price cap of interested stakeholders to review the
consequences. In their waiver requests, carriers file supporting information, price cap LECs’ more extensive tariff
both Verizon and AT&T argue that the without rate data, 90 days in advance of review plans filed with their annual
current process requiring a carrier to the annual access tariff filing to allow access charge tariff filings in advance of
obtain special permission each time it the public and Commission staff the the July 1 effective date. However, we
seeks to refer to its own tariffs is unduly opportunity to review that information seek comment on whether in previous
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:19 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_58734/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 58513
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small comments may be filed on or before m-50 percent skywave contour from co-
Business Administration. February 19, 2019. channel stations and to their 0.5 mV/m
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, groundwave contour from adjacent-
List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 61
identified by MB Docket No. 13–249, by channel stations.
Communications common carriers, any of the following methods: 2. In the Further Notice of Proposed
Reporting and record keeping • Federal Communications Rulemaking (AMR FNPRM), FCC 15–
requirements, Tariffs, Commission’s Website: http:// 142, 30 FCC Rcd 12145, 81 FR 2818, Jan.
Telecommunications, Telephone. apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the 19, 2016, in this AM Revitalization
Federal Communications Commission instructions for submitting comments. proceeding, the Commission recognized
Cecilia Sigmund, • People with Disabilities: Contact the that many of the areas previously
FCC to request reasonable receiving only Class A secondary
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
accommodations (accessible format service are now served by FM stations
For the reasons discussed in the and smaller, more local AM stations. 30
preamble, the Federal Communications documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov FCC Rcd at 12168, 12170, paras. 51, 55.
Commission proposes to amend part 61 In the latter case, local AM service is
of title 47 of the Code of Federal or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 888–
835–5322. often curtailed by the need for a local
Regulations as follows: AM station to protect a (sometimes
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional distant) Class A station’s service. The
PART 61—TARIFFS Commission therefore tentatively
information on the rulemaking process,
■ 1. The authority citation for part 61 see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION concluded in the AMR FNPRM (1) that
continues to read as follows: section of this document. all Class A stations should be protected,
both day and night, to their 0.1 mV/m
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
groundwave contour, from co-channel
201–205, 403, unless otherwise noted. Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Media Bureau,
stations, thus maintaining daytime
Audio Division, (202) 418–2700;
§ 61.49 [Amended] protection but reducing protection to
Thomas Nessinger, Senior Counsel,
2. Amend § 61.49 by removing and secondary coverage service areas at
■ Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202)
reserving paragraph (k). night; (2) that all Class A stations should
418–2700. For additional information
■ 3. Amend § 61.74 by redesignating
continue to be protected to the 0.5 mV/
concerning the Paperwork Reduction
m groundwave contour, both day and
paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs Act (PRA) information collection
night, from first adjacent channel
(c) through (f) and adding a new requirements contained in this stations; and (3) that the critical hours
paragraph (b) to read as follows: document, contact Cathy Williams at protection of Class A stations should be
202–418–2918, or via the internet at eliminated completely. The Commission
§ 61.74 References to other instruments.
Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. sought comment on these proposals.
* * * * * SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
(b) Tariff publications filed by a 3. The AMR FNPRM proposals
summary of the Commission’s Second attracted voluminous and diverse
carrier may reference other tariff Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
publications filed by that carrier or its comments. The licensees of Class A
(Second FNPRM), MB Docket No. 13– stations, represented primarily by the
affiliates. 249; FCC 18–139, adopted and released AM Radio Preservation Alliance
* * * * * on October 5, 2018. The full text of this (AMRPA), argue against the proposals
[FR Doc. 2018–25324 Filed 11–19–18; 8:45 am] document will be available for public and in favor of retaining the current
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P inspection and copying via ECFS, and protection rules. AMRPA argues that the
during regular business hours at the Commission’s proposal would do
FCC Reference Information Center, ‘‘significant harm’’ to the AM band by
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room creating new interference, and point out
COMMISSION CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The the vital role that Class A stations have
47 CFR Part 73 full text of this document can also be played in prior emergencies, such as
downloaded in Word or Portable Hurricane Katrina, noting further that 25
[MB Docket No. 13–249; FCC 18–139] Document Format (PDF) at http:// such stations are Primary Entry Points
www.fcc.gov/ndbedp. (PEPs) for the Integrated Public Alert
Revitalization of the AM Radio Service and Warning System (IPAWS), 22 of
Synopsis
which have been outfitted by the
AGENCY: Federal Communications 1. The 73 Class A AM stations in the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Commission. United States are authorized to (FEMA) to improve operating capability
ACTION: Proposed rule. broadcast at up to 50 kW both day and in national emergencies. A number of
night and, by current rule, are designed other commenters joining AMRPA in
SUMMARY: In this document, the
to render primary and secondary service opposing the AMR FNPRM proposal
Commission adopted a Second Further over extended areas and are afforded agree that the proposal would reduce
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second extensive daytime and nighttime those stations’ utility during national
FNPRM), in which it sought comment protection from interference by co- and emergencies. Others contend that the
on alternative revised proposals to adjacent-channel AM stations. proposal will increase nighttime
change the interference protection given Currently, Class A AM stations in the interference in exchange for little in the
to Class A AM radio broadcast stations. continental United States are protected way of increased nighttime coverage for
These proposals were revised based on during the day to their 0.1 mV/m less-powerful stations, while still others
responses to the Further Notice of groundwave contour from co-channel object to losing the ability to listen to
Proposed Rule Making in this stations, and to their 0.5 mV/m distant signals for extended time
proceeding. groundwave contour from adjacent- periods.
DATES: Comments may be filed on or channel stations. At night, such Class A 4. On the other hand, a number of
before January 22, 2019 and reply stations are protected to their 0.5 mV/ commenters supported the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:19 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_58734/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-20 07:59:43
Document Modified: 2018-11-20 07:59:43
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments are due on or before December 20, 2018. Reply comments are due on or before January 4, 2019. | |
| Contact | Robin Cohn, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at 202-418-1540 or at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 58510 | |
| CFR Associated | Communications Common Carriers; Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements; Tariffs; Telecommunications and Telephone |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR