******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- ) Part 61 of the Commission's Rules ) CC Docket No. 98-131 and Related Tariffing Requirements ) ) Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) ) CC Docket No. 96-187 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ) ) REPORT AND ORDER AND FIRST ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth concurring and issuing a statement. Adopted: July 13, 1999; Released: August 3, 1999 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), requires that the Commission, in every even-numbered year beginning in 1998, review all regulations that apply to the operations and activities of any provider of telecommunications service and determine whether any of these regulations are no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers of the service. Section 11 further instructs the Commission to "repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer necessary in the public interest." 47 U.S.C.  161. As explained recently in the Notice, the Commission has initiated the comprehensive review of telecommunications and other regulations required by the statute. Moreover, we have not limited our review to situations where there is "meaningful economic competition," but adopt rule revisions here to promote meaningful deregulation and streamlining where competition or other considerations warrant such action. 2. As part of the 1998 biennial regulatory review, we reviewed our price cap rules, as well as other rules in Part 61, and we found a number of rules that no longer seem to serve any useful purpose. We also found several cases in which our rules were organized in a confusing manner. Accordingly, in our Notice, we proposed several revisions to Part 61, and to other rules located outside Part 61, but interrelated with tariffing requirements. Sixteen parties filed comments on October 16, 1998, and six filed replies on November 16, 1998. These parties are listed in Appendix A to this Order. In addition, on September 2, 1998, AT&T made an ex parte presentation regarding certain nondominant carrier tariff requirements. 3. In most cases, the parties did not comment on the rule revisions we proposed in the Notice. We adopt those revisions as they were proposed. We discuss in detail below the cases in which one or more parties did comment. In addition, some commenters proposed additional rule revisions, and we also discuss those proposals below. Finally, we reconsider on our own motion one of the electronic tariff filing rules adopted pursuant to the Streamlined Tariff Filing Order. All the rule revisions we adopt here are set forth in Appendix B to this Order. II. ELECTRONIC FILING A. Submitting Tariff Filing Fees Electronically 4. The Commission proposed amending Part 61 to enable carriers to submit tariff filing fees electronically. All the parties commenting on this proposal support it. We adopt these rule revisions as proposed in the Notice. 5. Ameritech notes that carriers filing electronically must occasionally refile a tariff filing when the Commission receives the tariff after the close of the business day. This is because such tariffs are treated as being filed the next business day, and therefore filed on one day less than the notice required by our rules. Ameritech argues that carriers should not be required to pay a second filing fee in such cases if the delay results from errors or failures in the Commission's electronic tariff filing system (ETFS). We decide against Ameritech's proposal. In many cases, it would be difficult or impossible to determine whether a particular delay is the result of a Commission error or failure, whether it was due to unexpected congestion on the Internet, or whether the carrier simply failed to allow enough time for ETFS to receive the tariff filing before the deadline. As a result, determining whether ETFS is at "fault" could be administratively burdensome, and could consume scarce Commission resources better used to fulfill other statutory duties. Furthermore, we note that a carrier can often avoid a second filing fee without creating additional administrative burdens, by terminating transmission if it appears that the tariff filing will not be received in time. 6. GTE argues that the ETFS system in general has been "exceptionally beneficial," and recommends extending the requirement to non-dominant carriers. We decline to do so at this time. In 1996, the Commission imposed mandatory detariffing requirements on nondominant IXCs. Those requirements have been stayed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pending judicial review. In 1997, the Commission adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on complete mandatory detariffing for non-incumbent LEC providers of interstate exchange access services. That proceeding is still pending, and will not be completed until after the court of appeals completes its review of our 1996 detariffing orders. It is possible that mandatory electronic tariff filing requirements for nondominant carriers could become moot for some or all such carriers shortly after the requirement was imposed. If necessary, we will consider imposition of a mandatory electronic tariff filing requirement on nondominant carriers after the conclusion of the pending mandatory detariffing proceedings. B. Electronic Signatures 7. Bell Atlantic claims that the proposed rules in the Notice would require incumbent LECs electronically submitting tariff fees to continue to file a paper copy of a tariff transmittal letter and Form 159. Bell Atlantic argues further that it is burdensome to file paper copies in that situation, and that the Commission should accept "electronic signatures" as provided in section 1.52 of its rules. We agree that requiring a paper copy of the transmittal letter and Form 159 when a carrier submits fees electronically unnecessarily increases the burdens placed on those carriers. In addition, requiring paper copies in this context tends to undercut the Commission's goals in adopting ETFS. We therefore amend section 61.14(b) of the rules as shown in Appendix B, to permit electronic signatures as Bell Atlantic suggests. C. Electronic Cover Letters 8. Section 61.33(a) of the Commission's rules establishes certain format requirements for transmittal letters accompanying dominant carriers' tariff filings. Some incumbent LECs claim that section 61.33(a) does not accommodate electronic filings, and propose revising section 61.33(a) to be applicable to electronic filings. We disagree that the requirements in section 61.33(a) should be extended to electronic tariff filings. The rules for carriers filing tariff cover letters electronically are set forth in section 61.15. Currently, all the electronic filing requirements are grouped together in sections 61.13 through 61.17, and it would be unnecessarily confusing to create other electronic filing requirements elsewhere in Part 61. We agree, however, that section 61.33(a) is unclear because it is not expressly limited to carriers that do not file tariffs electronically. Accordingly, we revise section 61.33(a) as set forth in Appendix B. III. POSTING 9. Section 61.72 requires issuing carriers to post their tariffs, i.e., keep them accessible to the public during normal business hours. In any state or territory of the United States in which the carrier has chosen to maintain a business office or offices open to the public, the carrier must post its tariffs in at least one of those business offices. In addition, a carrier must provide a telephone number for public inquiries about information contained in its tariffs. This telephone number should be made readily available to all interested parties. In the Notice, we noted that customers now have several alternatives available for getting answers to questions about their service, such as ETFS. The Commission therefore invited comment on revising section 61.72 to require that carriers only provide a telephone number for public inquiries about information contained in their tariffs. 10. Currently, only incumbent LECs must comply with the mandatory electronic tariff filing requirements, and thus only incumbent LEC tariffs appear on the Commission's web site. The Commission sought comment on whether other carriers should be required to post their tariffs on their own Internet web sites. 11. All the parties commenting on our proposal to eliminate the requirement to post tariffs at business offices support it. Several incumbent LECs advocate replacing the current requirement that they post tariffs in their business offices with an Internet posting requirement. TRA, however, argues that some small carriers do not maintain web sites, and that any Internet posting requirement should be limited to those carriers that have chosen to establish web sites. Sprint also opposes a mandatory Internet posting requirement, because its tariff is over 13,000 pages, and therefore of limited usefulness to a customer looking for specific tariff pages. 12. We agree with the incumbent LECs supporting an Internet posting requirement. This benefits customers by creating an alternative method to obtain answers to tariff questions. Many incumbent LECs have voluntarily posted their tariffs on their web sites. In addition, because incumbent LECs are required to file tariffs electronically, they have already converted their tariffs to some electronic format. Therefore, most incumbent LECs that have not yet posted their tariffs on their web sites should be able to do so with little effort. We disagree with Sprint's contention that carriers with long tariffs should not be required to post their tariffs on the Internet. A tariff posted on the Internet is more accessible for most customers than a tariff posted in a business office, and therefore more "useful," regardless of the tariff's length. Sprint does not provide a sufficient reason for treating long tariffs and short tariffs differently. On the basis of the record before us, it appears that the only incumbent LECs that might have difficulty developing web sites are carriers that have chosen not to develop web sites. We therefore amend section 61.72 to eliminate the current business office posting requirement for all carriers filing tariffs, and to require any incumbent LEC with a web site to post its tariffs on its site. 13. GTE maintains that the Commission should maintain a complete list of carriers' telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and website Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). At this time, it does not appear necessary to specify a particular method that carriers must use to inform their customers of the method to obtain answers to tariff questions. Accordingly, we will not require carriers to submit their current telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and website information to the Commission. We may consider imposing such a requirement in the future if it appears that customers are experiencing difficulty in obtaining answers to their questions. We will, however, list on our website the telephone number or e- mail address of any carrier that so requests. 14. We note that the Commission has recently released an order requiring all nondominant interexchange carriers to make available to the public their rates, terms and conditions in a location accessible during regular business hours. Nondominant IXCs are not required to file tariffs electronically. As a result, while incumbent LEC tariffs are available for examination on the Commission's web site through ETFS, nondominant IXC tariffs are not. Because customers of nondominant IXCs cannot get answers to questions about their service from ETFS, it is appropriate to require nondominant IXCs to publicly disclose rate and service information in at least one location. Conversely, because incumbent LECs must file tariffs through ETFS, we need not continue to require incumbent LECs to post their tariffs in a business office. IV. MINIMUM TARIFF EFFECTIVE PERIOD A. Background 15. Under our current rules, a tariff must be in effect for at least 30 days before the issuing carrier is permitted to revise it. In the Notice, we explained that this rule limits rate churn. We explained further that rate churn can be disruptive for consumers because it can make it difficult to determine what rates are applicable at any given time. We also recognized that this rule could delay non-dominant carriers' responses to market pressures, and so invited comment on reducing the minimum effective period to 15 days for nondominant carriers. Because dominant carriers do not face effective competition, we proposed retaining the 30-day minimum effective period for dominant carriers. B. Non-dominant Carriers 16. AT&T argues that nondominant carriers should not face any minimum effective period requirement, because any customer that believes that a carrier revises its rates too frequently can switch to another carrier. No one opposed removing this requirement for IXCs. We find AT&T persuasive on this issue, and accordingly, we eliminate the minimum effective period for nondominant carriers proposed in the Notice. C. Dominant Carriers 17. A number of commenters advocate eliminating minimum effective periods for both dominant and non-dominant carriers. Sprint advocates reducing the minimum effective period for dominant carriers from 30 to 15 days. We conclude that we should retain the 30-day minimum effective period for dominant carriers. 18. Several commenters maintain that the customers of dominant incumbent LECs are generally large and sophisticated, and do not need protection from rate churn. Ameritech argues that the tariff notice period provides all the stability required. As we explained in the Notice, the Commission has long been concerned with rate churn. If there is excessive churn, it could be difficult to determine what rates are in effect on a given day. This, in turn, could make it difficult for a customer to file a complaint against a carrier, which could prove problematic where there is little competition to discipline the frequency with which carriers change their rates. The minimum effective period thus helps the Commission fulfill its consumer protection function. This function is necessary with respect to both large and small consumers. 19. Several incumbent LECs argue that the required effective period is no longer necessary, based on growing competitive and market pressures in the local exchange market. By definition, however, dominant carriers have market power, and face little effective competition or market pressure relative to nondominant carriers. The record in this proceeding does not support a conclusion that all carriers throughout their service areas face sufficient competition that their customers can switch to another carrier if they believe that a carrier revises its rates too frequently. 20. Several incumbent LECs argue that a minimum effective period is inconsistent with section 204(a)(3), which permits carriers to file tariff revisions on 7 or 15 days' notice. The minimum effective period does not require incumbent LECs to give more than 7 or 15 days' notice for a tariff revision; it requires only that the rate remain in effect for at least 30 days before it is revised. Accordingly, we find nothing inconsistent between the minimum effective period and the notice periods mandated by the 1996 Act. 21. Sprint asserts that the Commission "routinely" waives this rule, in particular for corrections of typographical errors. Sprint is mistaken, both in asserting that corrections of typographical errors require a waiver of the minimum effective period, and that the Commission routinely grants waivers of the minimum effective period. The Commission does not waive the minimum effective period rule for corrections of typographical errors; the rules already permit such corrections to be made on three days' notice, regardless of the amount of time that the tariff has been in effect. Thus, no rule revision is necessary to address Sprint's concern regarding corrections. Furthermore, when the minimum effective period does delay a tariff revision, it is because the revision in question is substantive, and therefore raises the rate churn issues discussed above. The Commission does not grant such waivers "routinely" as Sprint asserts. For these reasons, we find that Sprint has not provided sufficient cause for revising the minimum effective period for dominant carriers. V. REORGANIZATION OF PART 61 22. In the Notice, the Commission proposed establishing subparts within Part 61, and moving certain sections, to make it clearer which rules apply to which class of carriers. Several incumbent LECs support the Commission's reorganization of Part 61, and none of the commenters oppose it. We therefore adopt it. 23. USTA recommends moving all the provisions of Parts 61 and 69 applicable only to price cap carriers to a new part USTA calls "Part XX." We will not adopt USTA's proposal at this time. First, it is clearer to retain all the tariff and cost support requirements in Part 61, and all the access charge rate structure rules in Part 69. Second, USTA's proposed reorganization appears intertwined with several other proposals, such as immediate nondominant treatment for all incumbent LECs. Such proposals would be better considered in the context of the Access Reform pricing flexibility proceeding. VI. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS A. Reorganization of Notice Requirements 24. In the Notice, the Commission observed that many notice requirements for dominant carriers in section 61.58 appear inconsistent, because it includes both the 7-or-15-day notice requirements adopted pursuant to the 1996 Act, and the longer notice periods in effect prior to adoption of the 1996 Act. The Commission also explained that this inconsistency could be resolved only if section 61.58 is read in conjunction with section 61.51(b), which states that section 61.58 also establishes notice periods for incumbent LECs choosing not to take advantage of the 7-or-15-day notice requirements. The Commission proposed to simplify the notice requirements for dominant carriers by moving them all into section 61.58. No commenter opposed this proposal. We adopt these revisions as proposed in the Notice. B. Retention of Two Notice Requirements 25. The Notice also invited comment on revising section 61.58 so that it does not specify any notice periods for incumbent LECs choosing not to take advantage of the shorter periods permitted by section 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act. Bell Atlantic and NECA argue that retaining two sets of notice requirements is confusing, and recommends deleting the notice requirements other than the 7-or-15- day requirements specified in section 204(a)(3) of the Act. Similarly, Sprint argues that requiring price cap LECs to file new service tariffs on either 15 or 45 days' notice is too inflexible, and makes it difficult for incumbent LECs to make the introduction of services coincide with the start of a billing cycle. We find these arguments persuasive. We revise section 61.58 accordingly, as shown in Appendix B. C. Notice Requirements of Rate-of-Return LECs 26. USTA recommends permitting rate-of-return carriers to file tariffs for new services on 15 days' notice. Under the 1996 Act and our current rules, all incumbent LECs, including rate-of-return carriers, can already file tariffs for new services on 15 days' notice. D. Alascom 27. Alascom is a dominant IXC providing service in Alaska. The Notice noted that Alascom currently files tariffs for its common carrier services in its Tariff F.C.C. No. 11 on 90 days notice pursuant to section 69.3(a) of the Commission's Rules, and the 1995 Commission Order implementing the Federal- State Alaska Joint Board recommended decision. We proposed amending section 61.58 so that it properly reflects the notice requirements applicable to Alascom. 28. ANS and ATU argue that section 61.58(e)(3) codifies a Commission policy adopted in the Alaska Market Structure Order, and that retention of this policy is important for the development of competition in Alaska because other telecommunications service providers in Alaska depend on Alascom's facilities to provide service. ANS and ATU maintain that Alascom's cost support is complex and often requires a full 90 days for the Commission and interested parties to review. On the other hand, Alascom's parent company, AT&T, asserts that there is no reason to require a longer notice period for Alascom than is required for dominant LECs. AT&T also maintains that the Commission could modify its policy without referral to a joint board. 29. As an initial matter, we agree that we could modify the 90-day notice period without referral to a joint board. The Alaska Market Structure Final Recommended Decision stated that Alascom's tariff should "be evaluated under the Commission's standard tariff review process." In the Alaska Market Structure Order, the Commission decided to apply the "standard tariff review process" as set forth in section 69.3(a) of the Commission's rules, which at the time of that Order required 90 days' notice for access tariff filings. Part 61 establishes several "standard" notice periods for several different kinds of tariff filings. There is nothing in the Alaska Market Structure Final Recommended Decision to suggest that the Joint Board considered a 90-day notice period to be necessary for Alascom's Tariff 11. 30. Nevertheless, we disagree with AT&T, and find that there are at least three relevant distinctions between Alascom and incumbent LECs. Each of these distinctions individually warrant requiring a longer notice period for Alascom than for incumbent LECs. First, Alascom's Tariff 11 services are rate-of-return regulated wholesale services provided to other carriers providing long distance service in Alaska in competition with Alascom. Therefore, Alascom's revisions to Tariff 11 must be reviewed carefully to ensure that Alascom does not engage in a "price squeeze," thereby restricting the development of competition in Alaska. Incumbent LECs do not simultaneously provide facilities-based interexchange services and access services without separate subsidiaries, and so do not have opportunities to engage in price squeezes similar to Alascom. In addition, as ANS and ATU point out, Alascom's cost support can be complex. Alascom's service region is broken into two areas: "Bush," locations at which Alascom holds a facilities monopoly; and "non-Bush," all other locations. Alascom is required to develop cost-based rates for transport and switching, and 7 or 15 days' notice would not be sufficient to enable us to determine whether Alascom's rates are reasonable. No incumbent LEC is required to submit detailed rate-of-return- based cost support information for different types of service areas as Alascom is. Finally, Congress expressly limited the 7-or-15 day notice requirement in section 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act to incumbent LECs, and so apparently intended to exclude IXCs such as Alascom. Although we are permitted under section 203(b)(2) of the Communications Act to establish a 7-or-15 day notice period for Alascom "for good cause shown," AT&T has not demonstrated good cause here. 31. Although we agree with ANS and ATU that a notice period longer than 7 or 15 days is required for Alascom's Tariff 11, we also conclude that we do not need a full 90 days to address the issues raised by Tariff 11 revisions. As explained above, the Joint Board did not find that a 90-day notice period is necessary for Alascom's Tariff 11. Rather, the 90-day notice period is a vestige of the notice periods permitted by the Communications Act prior to the 1996 amendments. Furthermore, the purpose of this proceeding is to reduce the regulatory burdens imposed by Part 61 as much as possible without unreasonably restricting our ability to perform our statutory duty. Accordingly, some reduction in Alascom's notice requirement is warranted. Currently, section 61.58(e) establishes a notice period of 35 days for any tariff filing not specifically assigned a different notice period. We find that 35 days' notice is sufficient for reviewing revisions to Alascom's Tariff 11. E. Miscellaneous Notice Issues 32. USTA recommends reducing the notice period for corrections from three days to one day. We reject USTA's proposal on this issue. The corrections for which the three-day notice period is available are corrections of spelling, punctuation, or typographical errors. We conclude that at least three days are required to allow Commission staff to ascertain that the LEC is not mischaracterizing a substantive revision as a "correction," thereby circumventing the minimum 7- or 15-day notice requirements established by Congress in the 1996 Act. 33. Section 61.58(a)(4) requires dominant carriers to notify their customers of any increased rate or reduction in service "in a form appropriate to the circumstances." Section 61.58(a)(4) states further that this notification "may include written notification, personal contact, or advertising in newspapers of general circulation." NECA suggests that the Commission clarify that electronic communications and Internet website postings may meet the requirements of section 61.58(a)(4) in some circumstances. NECA's suggestion does not warrant revision of section 61.58(a)(4), because the current version of that rule does not preclude such electronic communications. We decline to determine the circumstances under which such electronic communications would be "appropriate to the circumstances" within the meaning of section 61.58(a)(4). We can make that determination in the tariff review process. VII. NONDOMINANT CARRIER FILING REQUIREMENTS A. Generally 34. In the Notice, the Commission noted that it had previously decided to forbear from enforcing section 203 of the Communications Act with respect to nondominant IXCs. Accordingly, nondominant IXCs were neither required nor permitted to file tariffs for their provision of interstate interexchange services. On February 13, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review. As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. The Commission found that this was potentially confusing, and so proposed to redesignate section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as section 61.19, and to keep the currently effective sections 61.20-23 designated as sections 61.20-23, regardless of the outcome of the pending judicial review. No one opposed this proposal. We adopt these revisions as described in the Notice. 35. In the Notice, the Commission also proposed several minor revisions to the rules governing nondominant carrier filings. AT&T and Sprint comment on many of these proposals. For purposes of this Order, we refer to the nondominant carrier tariff rules pursuant to the section numbers as we have redesignated them here. 36. In the Mandatory Detariffing Reconsideration Order, the Commission created an exception to the mandatory detariffing policy it adopted for nondominant IXCs. Specifically, nondominant carriers are permitted to provide service to end users under tariff for 45 days, while those IXCs and their customers negotiate contractual agreements. AT&T recommends extending this period from 45 days to 90 days, to give IXCs and their customers sufficient time to consummate their agreements. Also, AT&T maintains that this period should run from the time that the IXC receives notification of a primary interexchange carrier (PIC) change from the LEC. We reject AT&T's recommendation. In AT&T's pleadings addressed in the Mandatory Detariffing Reconsideration Order in 1997, AT&T informed the Commission that 45 days should be sufficient time to establish a contractual relationship with the customer in almost all cases. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the time in which IXCs should be permitted to provide service under tariff should be kept to a minimum, so that the legal relationship between IXCs and their customers would more closely resemble such relationships in an unregulated environment. Thus, by seeking to extend the tariff period to 90 days, AT&T in effect advocates creating a more regulatory environment. AT&T does not provide a sufficient reason to retreat from our deregulatory goal. 37. AT&T recommends giving carriers the option of filing paper copies in an emergency, and requiring the carrier to file the tariff in question electronically within five business days. We decide against AT&T's recommendation. In the 1993 First Nondominant Tariff Filing Order, the Commission required nondominant carriers to file tariffs on disk. Specifically, the Commission found that, although paper tariff filings may be less costly for certain carriers, the reduced administrative burdens for the Commission and the benefits to the public outweigh the costs imposed on nondominant carriers by requiring them to file tariffs on disk. AT&T provides no basis for concluding that the re-introduction of paper tariff filings, with subsequent re-filings on disk or CD-ROM, would not create burdens on the Commission and the public that would outweigh any benefits for carriers. 38. Currently, redesignated section 61.22(a) establishes requirements for tariffs filed on disk. In the Notice, the Commission proposed to revise section 61.22(a) to include tariffs filed on CD-ROMs. AT&T notes that the proposed section 61.22(a) would require nondominant carriers to file no more than one tariff on each disk or CD-ROM. AT&T further claims that it has filed multiple tariffs on CD-ROMs in the past, and that refusing to permit it to continue to do so would force AT&T to incur additional expense of $2.5 million per year. We conclude that CD-ROMs provide sufficient capacity for several tariffs, and that requiring no more than one tariff to be filed on each CD-ROM would create unnecessary expense for carriers and for interested parties making copies of nondominant tariffs. Therefore, we will permit nondominant carriers to file multiple tariffs on one CD-ROM. Disks, however, provide much less capacity than CD-ROMs, and our staff has found that it is often difficult for the public to read a carrier's tariffs when the carrier has placed more than one tariff on a disk. Therefore, we limit carriers to one tariff per disk, as we proposed in the Notice. 39. The Notice also proposed updating redesignated section 61.22(a) by specifying more recent versions of software for tariffs filed on disk. AT&T argues that it should be permitted to use more current software versions than specified in the rules, as long as the diskette or CD-ROM provides the ability to be converted to the particular releases specified by the Commission. Similarly, SBC recommends revising sections 61.20(c) and 61.22(a) to permit tariffs to be filed on "zip" drives. The Commission has limited financial resources, and usually is not able to update its software as often as AT&T. In addition, the convertible formats suggested by AT&T do not always work as they should. In such cases, the Commission would be left unable to review the tariff filed with it, and members of the public would not be able to examine that tariff at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Nor do we have the resources necessary to enable members of the public to examine tariffs filed on "zip" drives. Therefore, we reject AT&T's and SBC's recommendations. 40. AT&T requests the Commission to clarify that the one-day notice requirement for nondominant carriers extends to tariffs correcting typographical errors and reinstatements. Under our revised rules, all nondominant carriers can file any tariff revision, including corrections and reinstatements, on one day's notice. B. Contract Tariffs 41. In the Notice, the Commission proposed codifying certain existing format requirements for contract tariffs in a new section 61.22(e). In particular, the Commission proposed requiring carriers to identify contract tariffs by numbering them separately from non-contract-based tariffs, in the form of "CT No. ___." AT&T argues that it should be permitted to identify contract tariffs as either "CT No. __" or "Contract Tariff No. __". We agree that AT&T's proposal would meet the Commission's goal just as well as the requirement proposed in section 61.22(e), and so we adopt it. 42. In an ex parte meeting on September 2, 1998, AT&T argued that it would be excessively burdensome to require a separate transmittal letter for each contract tariff filing as was proposed in section 61.22(e). We agree, and revise section 61.22(e) in Appendix B accordingly. 43. Sprint argues that it files all its contract tariffs as options within its Tariff F.C.C. No. 12, and that it is not aware of any customer confusion or complaints. Our intent in proposing section 61.22(e) was to codify format requirements for nondominant carriers electing to take advantage of the streamlined contract tariff filing requirements spelled out currently in section 61.55 of our rules. As long as Sprint chooses to continue filing its contract tariffs in compliance with the more detailed requirements applicable to non-contract-tariff offerings, it will not be required to comply with section 61.22(e). 44. Sprint's comments bring another issue to our attention. Sections 61.3(m) and 61.55 extend contract tariff authority to all non-dominant carriers and interexchange carriers subject to price cap regulation. As explained further below, the only interexchange carrier that was ever subject to price cap regulation was AT&T, and AT&T has since been declared nondominant. Accordingly, we remove the references to IXC price cap regulation from sections 61.3(m) and 61.55. In addition, because section 61.55 as revised is applicable only to nondominant carriers, we move those requirements to Subpart C of Part 61, specifying nondominant carrier tariff rules. Finally, we remove section 61.33(h)(2), specifying rules for dominant carriers' transmittal letters to accompany contract tariffs. C. Filing Tariffs on Disk 45. Redesignated section 61.22(c) requires nondominant carriers revising a tariff to refile the entire tariff on a new disk. The Notice proposed creating an exception to this rule for nondominant carriers who have an individual tariff that requires ten or more disks, so that those carriers would be required only to refile the disk or disks on which changes appear. Sprint argues that carriers should be permitted to file a disk containing only those tariff pages that are being revised, and file a complete new tariff at the end of each month. We will not permit all nondominant carriers to file tariffs as Sprint suggests. Under Sprint's suggestion, before the end of the month, a carrier could have several versions of a certain tariff page on several disks on file with the Commission. In that case, a member of the public wishing to examine that page would be find it very difficult to determine whether he or she is looking at the tariff page actually in effect, or which version is currently pending effectiveness. On the other hand, it appears less burdensome for most carriers to refile an entire disk than to copy the pages at issue onto a new disk prior to making revisions. 46. With respect to carriers whose individual tariffs require a large number of disks, however, we find Sprint's argument to be persuasive. The Commission required nondominant carriers to file tariffs on disk in part to facilitate the public availability of those tariffs. It can be very expensive for a carrier to refile several disks for each tariff revision, and for members of the public to purchase several disks to review a current copy of that carriers' tariff. We find that Sprint's proposal reduces this expense for both carriers and members of the public, and that in cases of nondominant carriers with a large number of disks, these savings outweigh the burdens associated with determining whether one is examining a current tariff page. The Notice proposed modifying the requirements of redesignated section 61.22(c) for carriers whose tariffs require ten or more disks. None of the commenters have provided a basis for establishing a higher or lower threshold. Accordingly, we adopt Sprint's proposal for permitting nondominant carriers to file only a disk containing revised tariff pages, but only for carriers whose individual tariffs require ten or more disks. VIII. INTERNATIONAL TARIFFS 47. The Commission invited comment on requiring carriers to maintain separate tariffs for domestic and international services. The Commission reasoned that different rules apply to domestic and international tariffs, and that separating domestic and international tariffs would facilitate review. 48. AT&T asserts that separating its domestic and international tariffs would require approximately 18 person-years of labor and cause substantial customer confusion and inconvenience. AT&T also argues that these detriments outweigh the slight benefits of facilitating review of domestic and international tariffs. We find AT&T's argument persuasive, and accordingly, we will not require carriers to establish separate tariffs for domestic and international services, as proposed in the Notice. IX. PRICE CAP ISSUES A. LEC PCI Formula 1. Proposals in the Notice 49. Background. In the Notice, the Commission proposed several revisions to the price cap rules in Part 61. First, the Commission proposed to remove the price cap rules applicable to AT&T before it was found to be nondominant in 1995, including the AT&T price cap index (PCI) formula in section 61.44. The Commission also proposed to revise the LEC PCI formula in section 61.45 to remove the cross- references to section 61.44. 50. The Commission also invited comment on the proper definition of the "w" term in the PCI formula. The "w" term is a weighting factor to ensure that X-Factor adjustments are not applied to exogenous cost changes. The Commission proposed a "w" definition, but sought comment on whether that proposed definition was appropriate for the LEC PCI formula, or appropriate only in the interexchange basket. 51. Discussion. No one opposes our proposal to eliminate the AT&T price cap rules from Part 61. In this Order, we eliminate section 61.44, and the references to dominant IXC price cap regulation in other sections of the price cap rules. 52. Several parties argue that the proposed definition of "w" in the Notice is appropriate only for the interexchange basket PCI formula, because it incorporates imputed access revenues into the calculation of "w." The Commission requires price cap LECs offering interexchange basket services to impute to themselves the same access charges that they impose on interexchange carriers, to maintain competitive parity among interexchange service providers. Thus, while imputed access revenues are relevant for interexchange basket rates, to they are not relevant to rates for services in other baskets. Accordingly, we adopt the definition of "w" proposed in the Notice, but only for the interexchange basket. Parties also propose a different definition for "w" for the baskets other than the interexchange basket. We have reviewed this proposed "w" definition, and we find that it is appropriate for the baskets other than the interexchange basket. 53. Currently, LECs are required to treat changes in imputed access charges like exogenous cost changes, in addition to incorporating them into the "w" calculation, so that those changes directly increase or decrease the PCI. A number of LECs assert that the PCI formula proposed in the Notice does not incorporate the imputation of access charges for the interexchange basket, and recommend setting forth the formula for this basket separately. The Commission did not intend to change the requirement that price cap LECs impute access charges into their interexchange basket PCI calculations. From the comments, it appears that the PCI formula proposed in the Notice does not clearly incorporate the imputation of access charges. Therefore, to clarify that price cap LECs must impute access charge changes into their interexchange basket PCI calculations, and to accommodate the separate "w" definition for the interexchange basket, we revise section 61.45 to create a separate PCI formula for the interexchange basket, as set forth in Appendix B. 2. Other Proposals 54. Several incumbent LECs propose other changes to the LEC PCI formulas. For example, US West and Sprint claim that the definition of "R" proposed in the Notice might double-count the portion of primary interexchange carrier charge (PICC) revenues associated with each basket. These two carriers propose revising section 61.45(b)(1) to determine R by "including" PICC revenues rather than "adding" those revenues. The Notice proposed defining R as follows: "R = an amount calculated by multiplying base period quantities for each rate element in the basket by the price for that rate element at the time the PCI was updated to PCIt-1, summing the results, and adding the products of base period quantities for each PICC established in section 69.153 of this Chapter and the portion of that PICC that is associated with the basket[.]" We proposed defining "R" this way because we believed that the "portion of that PICC that is associated with the basket" is not a "rate element." We did not intend to double-count PICC revenues. Because US West's and Sprint's definition is clearer than the definition we proposed in the Notice, we adopt their definition. 55. Several incumbent LECs recommend revising section 61.45(c)(2), which provides the PCI formula for the common line basket, by adding the language in bold to read as follows: "The w[(GDP-PI - X - (g/2))/(1 + (g/2))] component of the PCI formula contained in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be employed only in the adjustment made in connection with the annual price cap filing. In non-annual price cap filings, g will be equal to 0." Because this additional language simply clarifies the existing requirement in section 61.45(c)(2), we adopt this proposal. 56. Several carriers claim that sections 61.45(i) and (j) of the rules, requiring "targeting" of PCI reductions to the transport interconnection charge (TIC), improperly include exogenous adjustments to the common line and traffic-sensitive PCIs in the amounts to be targeted. We disagree. Section 61.45(j)(2) explicitly states that exogenous adjustments shall be excluded from the amounts to be targeted to the TIC. Nevertheless, we revise sections 61.45(i) and (j) to make it more clear that price cap LECs should exclude exogenous adjustments from the amounts to be targeted to the TIC. 57. Finally, some incumbent LECs claim that the proposed section 61.45(i)(4), governing the calculation of the PCI reductions to be targeted to the TIC, could drive the trunking basket PCI to 0. These LECs recommend basing the TIC retargeting on the value of "R" in the trunking basket, rather than the "dollar effect of the PCI reduction" as was proposed in the Notice. These LECs are persuasive on this issue, and we adopt their proposed revision to section 61.45(i)(4). B. Targeting of Exogenous Adjustments 58. Background. In the Notice, the Commission noted that the Common Carrier Bureau granted USTA a waiver of the price cap rules to specify a method for targeting exogenous changes to particular service categories, and to base PICC calculations on base period data rather than projected demand as was required in the Access Reform First Report and Order. The Commission solicited comment on incorporating this waiver into the price cap rules. 59. Discussion. Sprint supports our proposal to base PICC calculations on base period data rather than projected demand. No one opposed it. We adopt the revisions to section 69.153 that we proposed in the Notice. 60. Some incumbent LECs claim that the targeting formulas proposed in the Notice are applicable only to non-annual filings, and recommend that we add the formulas necessary for annual filing, or not adopt any formulas at all. AT&T and MCI recommend that we eliminate these formulas, because the retargeting involved will not be required very much longer. We agree with AT&T and MCI that it is not necessary to specify formulas in the rules when those formulas would be used for a relatively short time. Accordingly, we will not adopt the targeting formulas we proposed in the Notice for section 61.47(i). C. Common Line Formula Issues 61. Part 69 of the Commission's rules apportions incumbent LEC common line costs between EUCL and CCL charges using the base factor portion (BFP) revenue requirement calculation. Price cap LECs also use BFP to determine the actual price index (API) for the common line basket. Bell Atlantic argues that BFP is an inefficient remnant of rate-of-return regulation, and recommends eliminating BFP from common line rate calculations for price cap carriers. Alternatively, Bell Atlantic recommends basing BFP calculations on historical data rather than projections. Bell Atlantic claims that this would have little effect on rates, but would greatly reduce the burdens of common line calculations. We agree that BFP is an inefficient remnant of rate-of-return regulation. In the Access Reform proceeding, the Commission required LECs to phase out their per-minute CCL rates, and to eliminate their BFP-based common line rate calculations when the maximum presubscribed interexchange carrier charge (PICC) assessed on primary residential lines, plus the maximum EUCL on those lines, recovers the full amount of their per-line common line price cap revenues. We do not have a sufficient record in this proceeding, however, to determine whether we should accelerate the change in the calculation of the EUCL. We may seek comment on Bell Atlantic's suggestion in a future proceeding. 62. The common line formula in section 61.46(d)(1) includes the LEC's maximum permitted EUCL charges and its maximum permitted PICC charges, but does not define either of these terms. Frontier proposes revising section 61.46(d) to specify how those EUCL charges and PICCs should be calculated. We have decided against Frontier's proposal. First, many of Frontier's definitions duplicate definitions set forth in sections 69.152 or 69.153 of the Commission's rules, and therefore are unnecessary and possibly confusing. Second, as discussed above, our rules are designed to phase out use of the formula in section 61.46(d)(1) to calculate common line rates. We conclude that it is not necessary to adopt the formulas proposed by Frontier for section 61.46(d) when those formulas would be used for a relatively short time. D. Other Price Cap Rule Proposals 63. Currently, section 61.42(d) specifies the price cap baskets, and section 61.42(e) defines the service categories. Frontier proposes combining the basket definitions in paragraph (d) with the service category definitions in paragraph (e). We reject Frontier's proposed revisions to section 61.42 because we find that they make the rule less clear. Frontier and SBC also propose minor word edits to section 61.43. We adopt Frontier's and SBC's revisions to section 61.43 because we find that they make the rule clearer. The revised section 61.43 is set forth in Appendix B. 64. Frontier and Sprint recommend making a separate PCI formula for each basket to be set forth in section 61.45(c)(1) through (5), and specifying the definitions of all the terms in section 61.45(c)(6). We have decided against adopting these rule revisions. The Commission has always used the same PCI formula for all the baskets except for the common line basket. In the LEC Price Cap Order, the Commission found that the common line basket presents a special case that requires a different PCI formula to further certain Universal Service goals. Later, in the Access Reform First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that the separate common line PCI formula would no longer be warranted when the transition away from per-minute carrier common line rates was completed. In this Order, we adopt a separate PCI formula for the interexchange basket because the record in this proceeding revealed that continuing to apply the same PCI formula to the interexchange basket and other baskets was unnecessarily confusing. We find that creating even more PCI formulas as Frontier or Sprint suggest would unnecessarily complicate the rules. 65. Frontier and Sprint also recommend replacing the cross-reference to section 69.612 in section 61.45(d)(1)(iv), which permits price cap LECs to make exogenous adjustments to reflect changes in Universal Service obligations, with a cross-reference to the Universal Service obligations spelled out in Part 54 of the Commission's rules. We find that it is reasonable to update the exogenous cost rules to reflect the recent changes the Commission has adopted to its Universal Service rules, and therefore we adopt this revision. Alternatively, Bell Atlantic argues that Universal Service contributions should not be treated as exogenous adjustments to the PCI formula, for reasons discussed by USTA in its petition for reconsideration of the Access Reform First Report and Order. We conclude that it would be better to consider this issue on the basis of the record developed in response to all the petitions for reconsideration of the Access Reform First Report and Order. Accordingly, we will not consider Bell Atlantic's and USTA's argument further in this Order. 66. Frontier and Sprint suggest removing sections 61.45(k) and (l). Frontier also recommends removing sections 61.46(g) and (h). Because these provisions simply restate requirements established elsewhere in the Commission's rules, we agree that they should be eliminated. 67. Sections 61.46(a) and 61.47(a) require price cap LECs to assign weights to their rate elements when calculating actual price indices (APIs) and service band indices (SBIs). Currently, those weights are based on the current price for each rate element, times the base period demand for each rate element. Frontier recommends a different revenue weighting method using current year revenue divided by the base year revenue for each rate element. We reject this proposal at this time. Determining the current year revenue for each rate element requires the LEC to estimate demand for that rate element. In the AT&T Price Cap Order, the Commission based the weights used in the price cap formulas applicable to AT&T on historical costs and demand rather than projections, to avoid the controversy and difficulty of determining whether the demand projections are accurate. The LEC Price Cap Order also required incumbent LECs to base weights on historical demand data. For particular services, which are experiencing extremely rapid changes in demand, projected demand might be more accurate than base period demand, and the benefits of this increase in accuracy might outweigh the burdens associated with demand projections. We cannot conclude on the basis of this record, however, that demand for all services is changing so rapidly as to warrant the use of projected demand in the API and SBI formulas for all baskets. 68. Frontier recommends reorganizing section 61.47, governing SBIs, to list all the rate elements with 5 percent limits, 2 percent limits, and 0 percent limits in section 61.47(e), and to eliminate sections 61.47(f) and (g). We find that Frontier's proposals greatly simplify the rules governing price cap common line and SBI calculations, and so we adopt its revisions, as set forth in Appendix B. X. PRICING FLEXIBILITY 69. In its comments in this proceeding, USTA makes several extensive recommendations for expanding the pricing flexibility available to incumbent LECs under price cap regulation. For example, USTA recommends permitting incumbent LECs to file contract tariffs. USTA advocates permitting price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on 15 days' notice without price support, and permitting LECs to provide those services outside of price cap regulation. USTA further recommends making the section 61.39 cost support requirements, currently available only to carriers serving less than 50,000 access lines, available to any carrier with less than two percent of the nation's access lines. USTA's proposals are supported generally by several incumbent LECs. 70. Bell Atlantic advocates eliminating the price cap new services test, and permitting price cap LECs to offer new switched access services without obtaining permission under section 69.4(g) to create a new switched access rate element. GTE recommends permissive detariffing, especially for nondominant carriers. 71. Bell Atlantic suggests combining all the current price cap baskets into a single basket, and creating four service categories: (1) tandem switching and transport, (2) local switching, (3) database services, and (4) common line and marketing. Bell Atlantic argues that these service categories should eliminate concerns over cross-subsidization, and would increase pricing flexibility. 72. We do not adopt any of these recommendations at this time, because these pricing flexibility issues are outside the scope of this proceeding. The Commission has already forborne from enforcement of section 69.4(g) with respect to incumbent local exchange carriers that each serve less than two percent of the nation's access lines. In addition, the Commission is considering pricing flexibility issues in the context of its ongoing Access Reform proceeding. The record on these issues is much more extensive there than it is in this proceeding, and provides a better basis on which to resolve these issues. We may consider these specific pricing flexibility proposals in the context of the Access Reform proceeding, to the extent that they have not already been proposed in that context. XI. REFERENCES 73. Currently, section 61.74 prohibits references in tariffs to other documents outside the tariff, except in very limited circumstances. The Notice proposed expanding the circumstances in which references would be permitted, to include (1) references to other tariffs on file with the Commission for purposes of determining mileage, and (2) references to technical publications, provided, among other things, the tariff explains where the technical publication can be obtained. NECA recommends revising section 61.74 to make it clear that carriers may cross-reference technical publications that are posted on Internet web sites. As proposed in the Notice, any carrier may cross-reference any technical publication, as long as the carrier meets the requirements of section 61.74(f). A technical publication posted on the Internet may meet those requirements. Stating this in the rule, however, may raise questions about cross- references to technical publications that are not posted on the Internet. Thus, NECA's proposal makes section 61.74 less clear. We therefore do not adopt it. 74. The Notice also proposed a section 61.25, governing references in nondominant carriers' tariffs. According to AT&T, proposed section 61.25 does not permit nondominant carriers to place cross- references in their tariffs to the same extent as dominant carriers are permitted to cross-reference under section 61.74. AT&T is mistaken. In the Notice, section 61.74 permits both dominant and nondominant carriers to include references in their tariffs under the conditions specified in section 61.74. Section 61.25 permits nondominant carriers to cross-reference in additional circumstances, under which dominant carriers are not permitted to cross-reference. In Appendix B, we revise section 61.25 to make this more clear. XII. OTHER PROPOSED RULE REVISIONS 75. Frontier recommends replacing references to "costs" with "prices" or "revenues" in price cap- related definitions in section 61.3. We agree that in the cases cited by Frontier, it makes no sense to define price cap concepts in terms of costs. SBC suggests revising section 61.3(y) to replace "Price cap tariff" with "Price cap tariff filing." We also agree that SBC's suggestion would clarify section 61.3(y). 76. SBC maintains that the definition of "base period" in section 61.3(e) should be revised, because the definition proposed in the Notice would "lock the effective date of the annual filings to July 1." Section 69.3(h) requires price cap LECs to file price cap tariffs to take effect on July 1, and both the current version of section 61.3(e) and the version proposed in the Notice is consistent with that requirement. We conclude that SBC's suggestion would not clarify section 61.3(e). 77. NECA recommends that we require rate-of-return carriers to estimate the effects of a new service on existing traffic only in cases where the new service is expected to be more than 10 percent of the carrier's total interstate revenues, or 10 percent of the pool's revenues in NECA's case. NECA argues that it is often difficult to project changes in demand, and claims that this requirement serves no purpose except where the new service can be expected to have a substantial impact. Although no one commented on NECA's proposal, we conclude that it would result in substantially reducing the cost support requirements for all or practically all the new services provided by rate-of-return LECs. NECA does not provide adequate justification in its pleadings in this proceeding to permit such a dramatic relaxation in rate-of- return carriers' cost support requirements at this time. 78. USTA recommends treating rates for new services filed by rate-of-return carriers as presumed lawful if those rates do not exceed the rates for the same service offered by a price cap LEC in an adjacent area. Under rate-of-return regulation, a carrier's rates are determined to be just and reasonable on the basis of that carrier's costs of providing the service in question. USTA provides no basis for us to conclude that the rates of a price cap carrier in an adjacent area will always be a reasonable surrogate for a given rate-of-return carrier's costs. 79. USTA argues that rate-of-return carriers filing any rate change should include an explanation of the changed matter, the reasons for the filing, the basis of the ratemaking employed and economic information to support the change, including a brief description of the costs for all elements for the most recent 12-month period, and projected costs. USTA's proposed cost support requirements appear to be substantially similar to the requirements currently in place in section 61.38(b)(1), and so we adopt no changes to rate-of-return carriers' cost support requirements at this time. 80. Some commenters claim that the proposed revisions in sections 61.38(g), 61.49(l), and 61.54(c)(3)(ii), to require transmittal numbers on cost support material, are burdensome, and recommend deleting these requirements or permitting carriers more flexibility in complying with them. We have determined that placing transmittal numbers on cost support material can be beneficial to those members of the public who routinely make copies of tariff filings in our Public Reference Room. If the cost support becomes separated from the revised tariff pages, it can be difficult for them to determine which cost support should be associated with which revised tariff pages. We agree, however, that carriers can and should be permitted flexibility with respect to these provisions, and revise sections 61.38(g), 61.49(l), and 61.54(c)(3)(ii) accordingly, as shown in Appendix B. 81. Section 61.54(i)(1) requires carriers making tariff revisions to identify the kind of tariff change being made with specific letter codes, called "symbols" in section 61.54(i)(1). NECA recommends expanding the "T" code to signify any change in tariff text, and eliminating the "C," "D," "N," and "Z" codes. Under NECA's recommendation, carriers would still be required to use a code of some kind to identify tariff revisions. NECA's proposal would make it more difficult for interested parties to determine how a carrier is revising its tariff, and increase the burdens placed on interested parties, with only a negligible reduction in the burden to the carrier. We therefore decide against NECA's recommendation. 82. AT&T pointed out an inconsistency in the symbol requirements applicable to nondominant carriers. Redesignated Section 61.22(d) states that nondominant carriers are not subject to any of the requirements of Section 61.54, including the symbol requirements. On the other hand, section 61.71 requires all carriers, including nondominant carriers, to use the "S" code for reissued matter in effect for less than 30 days. We conclude that this inconsistency can best be resolved by eliminating section 61.71. With respect to dominant carriers, section 61.71 is largely duplicative of section 61.54(i)(3), and we find that it would simplify Part 61 to consolidate all these requirements in section 61.54(i)(3). With respect to nondominant carriers, we know of no reason why this last symbol requirement remains necessary in the public interest, and so this biennial review proceeding provides a good opportunity to remove this requirement. 83. Currently, the Commissions's Rules permit carriers to file tariff supplements only to suspend or cancel a tariff publication. The Notice proposed extending the use of supplements to defer the effective date of pending tariff revisions. GTE concurs with the proposed revision, but recommends that we add language to make clear that special permission is not needed for a voluntary deferral. We agree that special permission is not needed for a voluntary deferral, and that the rule would be clearer if this were stated explicitly. 84. Sections 69.3(e)(6), (9) and 69.3(i) require carriers planning to enter or leave the NECA pools to notify NECA in advance. NECA requests that we clarify that, in cases where the Commission grants a carrier a waiver to permit it to enter or exit the NECA pools on less notice than required by the rules, NECA does not need to obtain a waiver of those rules as well. We see no way to interpret the rules cited by NECA to require NECA to file a waiver request in the situation NECA describes. Therefore, pursuant to section 1.2 of our rules, we clarify that NECA is not required to seek such a waiver in those circumstances. XII. RECONSIDERATION OF ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STREAMLINED TARIFF FILING ORDER 85. In 1997, the Commission adopted the Streamlined Tariff Filing Order to implement the streamlined tariff filing provisions of the 1996 Act. That Order also delegated authority to the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) to establish an electronic tariff filing program. Under that delegated authority, the Bureau adopted rules establishing the electronic tariff filing program in May 1998. Petitions for reconsideration of the Streamlined Tariff Filing Order are pending, and we will address the issues raised in those petitions in a future Order. 86. On our own motion, we revise one of the electronic tariff filing rules, section 61.17(c), governing electronic applications for special permission. Section 61.17(c) cross-references section 61.153(c), which requires carriers seeking special permission electronically also to file a paper copy with the Secretary of the Federal Communications Commission. We can streamline the special permission process further if we eliminate this requirement for carriers seeking special permission electronically. Accordingly, we revise section 61.17(c) as set forth in Appendix B of this Order to no longer require carriers seeking special permission electronically also to file a paper copy with the Commission's Secretary. XIII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 87. The decision contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, and does not contain new and/or modified information collections subject to Office of Management and Budget review. B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 88. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Notice in this docket. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission has prepared this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact this order might have on small entities, in conformance with the RFA. 1. Need for and Objectives of Rules 89. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Commission in every even-numbered year beginning in 1998 to review all regulations that apply to the operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service and to determine whether any such regulation is no longer necessary in the public interest due to meaningful economic competition. Our objective is to repeal or modify any rules in Part 61 that are no longer necessary in the public interest, as required by section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments to the IRFA 90. Only one party, NTCA, submitted comments directly in response to the IRFA. NTCA claims that the definition of "small business" in the Commission's IRFA does not comply with the RFA. NTCA claims further that the Commission's IRFA resulted in inadequate consideration of whether the tariffs of small incumbent LECs should be subject to a different minimum effective period than the tariffs of large incumbent LECs. We find that NTCA is mistaken on both its assertions. 91. The Commission has determined consistently that incumbent LECs are not "small entities" within the meaning of the RFA, and NTCA cites no legal authority that causes us to question this conclusion. Furthermore, regardless of the correct interpretation of the term "small entities" in this context, we included small dominant incumbent LECs in our IRFA. Therefore, NTCA has no basis to assert that the IRFA was inadequate. Second, as explained in section IV.C. of this Order, all dominant LECs, including small dominant LECs, have market power by definition. As a result, these carriers do not face sufficient competition to enable their customers to switch to another carrier if they believe that they revise their rates too frequently. In addition, excessive rate churn could make it difficult or impossible for customers to determine the rates in effect on any given day, which in turn would make it difficult for a customer to file a complaint against a carrier. NTCA provides no explanation as to why rate churn caused by a small LEC affects customers any differently than rate churn caused by a large LEC. 92. Although no party other than NTCA commented directly in response to the IRFA, we have kept small entities in mind as we considered the more general comments filed in this proceeding, as discussed below. 3. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply 93. In the Notice, the Commission stated that the proposals under consideration, if adopted, would affect all telecommunications carriers regulated by the Commission. The United States Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3497 firms engaged in providing telephone service, as defined therein, for at least one year. This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including LECs, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not independently owned or operated. 94. In the Notice, Commission also explained that dominant carriers are not small businesses for IRFA purposes because they are dominant in their field of operation. We have found incumbent LECs to be "dominant in their field of operation" since the early 1980s, and we consistently have certified under the Regulatory Flexibility Act that incumbent LECs are not subject to regulatory flexibility analysis requirements because they are not small businesses. In order to remove any possible issue of Regulatory Flexibility Act compliance, however, the Notice tentatively concluded that dominant carriers should be included in this IRFA. NTCA also argues that small dominant carriers should be included in the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. No one else commented on this issue. 4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 95. In this Order, we adopt several revisions to Part 61 that reduce the regulatory burdens placed on all telecommunications common carriers, including common carriers. The remaining rule revisions generally re-state existing requirements in clearer terms. Consequently, we project that this Order imposes no significant new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on small carriers. 5. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 96. In this proceeding, we have taken several steps to minimize the economic impact of our existing Part 61 rules on all carriers, including small carriers. For example, we have substantially relaxed our posting requirements, we have eliminated our minimum notice requirements for nondominant carriers, and we have expanded carriers' ability to submit tariff filing fees electronically. We also decided against requiring carriers to separate their domestic and international tariffs when the record revealed that such a requirement would have been burdensome. Finally, we limited the Internet posting requirement to incumbent LECs who choose to establish web sites. 6. Report to Congress 97. The Commission will send a copy of this order, including the FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. A summary of this Report and Order and this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register, and will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. XIV. ORDERING CLAUSES 98. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 303(r), 403, and section 553 of Title 5, United States Code, that revisions to Parts 61, 63, and 69 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 61, 63, 69, ARE ADOPTED as set forth in Appendix B. 99. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), and 201-205 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and 201-205, and section 1.108 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.108, that revisions to  61.17(c) ARE ADOPTED as set forth in Appendix B. 100. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provision of this Order will be effective 30 days after a summary of this Order is published in the Federal Register. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary APPENDIX A Parties filing Pleadings I. Comments filed October 16, 1998 1. ALLTEL Communications Services Corporation (Alltel) 2. Alaska Network Systems (ANS) 3. Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech) 4. AT&T Corp. (AT&T) 5. ATU Long Distance (ATU) 6. Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic) 7. BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) 8. Frontier Corporation (Frontier) 9. GTE Service Corporation (GTE) 10. National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) 11. National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA) 12. SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) 13. Sprint Corporation (Sprint) 14. Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA) 15. United States Telephone Association (USTA) 16. US West Communications, Inc. (US West) II. Replies filed November 16, 1998 1. AT&T 2. MCI 3. NECA 4. SBC 5. Sprint 6. TRA APPENDIX B AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 61 -- TARIFFS 1. The authority citation continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, and 403, unless otherwise noted. 2.  61.1 through 61.3 [Amended] 3. Designate 61.1 through 61.3 as subpart A and add a subpart heading entitled "Subpart A - General" immediately preceding 61.1. 4. Revise 61.2 to read as follows:  61.2 General tariff requirements. (a) In order to remove all doubt as to their proper application, all tariff publications must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations. (b) Tariff publications must be delivered to the Commission free from all charges, including claims of postage. (c) Tariff publications will not be returned. 5. Remove the undesignated center heading "Definitions" immediately preceding 61.3. 6. Amend 61.3 by revising paragraphs (e), (f)(3), (m), (w), and (y), to read as follows:  61.3 Definitions. * * * * * (e) Base period. For carriers subject to 61.41-61.49, the 12-month period ending six months prior to the effective date of annual price cap tariffs. Base year or base period earnings shall exclude amounts associated with exogenous adjustments to the PCI for the lower formula adjustment mechanism permitted by 61.45(d)(1)(vii). * * * * * (f) * * * (3) the related revenues of which are reflected in a Price Cap Index. * * * * * (m) Contract-based tariff. A tariff based on a service contract entered into between a nondominant carrier and a customer. * * * * * (w) Price Cap Index (PCI). An index of prices applying to each basket of services of each carrier subject to price cap regulation, and calculated pursuant to 61.45. * * * * * (y) Price cap tariff filing. Any tariff filing involving a service subject to price cap regulation, or that requires calculations pursuant to 61.45, 61.46, or 61.47. * * * * * 7. Remove the undesignated center headings "GENERAL RULES" and "Rules for Electronic Filing" immediately preceding 61.13. 8.  61.13 through 61.17 [Amended] 9. Designate 61.13 through 61.17 as subpart B and add a subpart heading entitled "Subpart B - Rules for Electronic Filing" immediately preceding 61.13. 10. Amend 61.14 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:  61.14 Method of filing publications. * * * * * (b)(1) In addition, except for issuing carriers filing tariffing fees electronically, for all tariff publications requiring fees as set forth in part 1, subpart G of this chapter, issuing carriers must submit the original of the cover letter (without attachments), FCC Form 159, and the appropriate fee to the Mellon Bank, Pittsburgh, PA at the address set forth in 1.1105 of this chapter. (2) Issuing carriers filing tariffing fees electronically must submit the Form 159. The issuing carrier may submit the Form 159 in either of the methods set forth in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this section: (i) Issuing carriers submitting tariffing fees electronically may submit a paper copy of the Form 159, and the original transmittal letter to the Secretary of the Commission in lieu of the Mellon Bank, or; (ii) Issuing carriers submitting tariffing fees electronically may submit a copy of the Form 159 electronically as an associated document with their tariff filing publication. In this instance issuing carriers must provide an electronic signature on their letter of transmittal in accordance with section 1.52 of this chapter. (iii) Regardless of whether the Form 159 is submitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Form 159 should display the Electronic Audit Code in the box in the upper left hand corner marked "reserved." Issuing carriers should submit these fee materials on the same date as the submission in paragraph (a) of this section. 11. Amend 61.17 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:  61.17 Method of filing applications for special permission. * * * * * (c) In addition, if a carrier applies for special permission to revise joint tariffs, the application must state that it is filed on behalf of all carriers participating in the affected service. Applications must be numbered consecutively in a series separate from FCC tariff numbers, bear the signature of the officer or agent of the carrier, and be in the following format: Application No.______ (Date)______ Secretary Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554. Attention: Common Carrier Bureau (here provide the statements required by  61.152). (Exact name of carrier)______ (Name of officer or agent)______ (Title of officer or agent)______ 12. Remove the undesignated center heading "General Rules for Domestic and International Nondominant Carriers" immediately preceding 61.20. 13. Designate 61.20 through 61.24 as subpart C and add a subpart heading entitled "Subpart C - General Rules for Nondominant Carriers" immediately preceding 61.20. 14. Add 61.18 to subpart C to read as follows:  61.18 Scope. The rules in this subpart apply to all nondominant carriers. 61.20 through 61.24 [Redesignated as 61.19 through 61.23] 15. Redesignate  61.20 through 61.24 as 61.19 through 61.23. 16. In newly redesignated 61.19, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:  61.19 Detariffing of domestic, interstate, interexchange services. * * * * * (b) Carriers that are nondominant in the provision of domestic, interstate, interexchange services are permitted to file tariffs for dial-around 1+services. For the purposes of this paragraph, dial-around 1+calls are those calls made by accessing the interexchange carrier through the use of that carrier's carrier access code. (c) Carriers that are nondominant in the provision of domestic, interstate, interexchange services are permitted to file a tariff for such interstate service applicable to those customers who contact the local exchange carrier to designate an interexchange carrier or to initiate a change with respect to their primary interexchange carrier. Such tariff will enable the interexchange carrier to provide service to the customer until the interexchange carrier and the customer consummate a written agreement, but in no event shall the interexchange carrier provide service to its customer pursuant to such tariff for more than 45 days. 17. In newly redesignated 61.20, revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) to read as follows:  61.20 Method of filing publications. * * * * * (b)(1) In addition, except for issuing carriers filing tariffing fees electronically, for all tariff publications requiring fees as set forth in part 1, subpart G of this chapter, issuing carriers must submit the original of the cover letter (without attachments), FCC Form 159, and the appropriate fee to the Mellon Bank, Pittsburgh, PA at the address set forth in 1.1105 of this chapter. Issuing carriers submitting tariffing fees electronically should submit the Form 159 and the original cover letter to the Secretary of the Commission in lieu of the Mellon Bank. The Form 159 should display the Electronic Audit Code in the box in the upper left hand corner marked "reserved." Issuing carriers should submit these fee materials on the same date as the submission in paragraph (a) of this section. * * * * * (c) In addition to the requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the issuing carrier must send a copy of the cover letter with one 3 1/2 inch diskette or CD-ROM containing both the complete tariff and any attachments, as appropriate, to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. In addition, the issuing carrier must send one diskette or CD-ROM of the complete tariff and a copy of the cover letter to the commercial contractor (at its office on Commission premises), and to the Chief, Tariff and Pricing Analysis Branch. The latter should be clearly labeled as the "Public Reference Copy." The issuing carrier should file the copies required by this paragraph so they will be received on the same date as the filings in paragraph (a) of this section. In cases where the a single diskette or CD-ROM does not provide sufficient capacity for the carrier's entire tariff filing, the issuing carrier may submit two or more diskettes, or two or more CD-ROMs, as necessary. 18. In newly redesignated 61.21, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:  61.21 Cover letters. (a)(1) Except as specified in 61.32(b), all publications filed with the Commission must be accompanied by a cover letter, 8.5 by 11 inches (21.6 cm x 27.9 cm) in size, and must be plainly printed in black ink. All transmittal letters should briefly explain the nature and purpose of the filing and indicate the date and method of filing of the original cover letter, as required by 61.20(b)(1) of this part. * * * * * 19. Immediately after newly redesignated 61.21, remove the undesignated center heading "Specific Rules For Domestic and International Nondominant Carriers". 20. In newly redesignated 61.22, revise paragraph (a), redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (c)(1), and add paragraphs (c)(2) and (e) to read as follows:  61.22 Composition of tariffs. (a) The tariff must be submitted on a 3 1/2 inch (8.89 cm) diskette, or a 5 inch CD-ROM, formatted in an IBM-compatible form using either WordPerfect 5.1, Microsoft Word 6, or Microsoft Word 97 software. No diskettes shall contain more than one tariff. The diskette or CD-ROM must be submitted in "read only" mode. The diskette or CD-ROM must be clearly labelled with the carrier's name, Tariff Number, software used, and the date of submission. When multiple diskettes or CD-ROMs are submitted, the issuing carrier shall clearly label each diskette in the following format: "1 of __", "2 of __", etc. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) Any issuing carrier submitting an individual tariff that requires ten or more diskettes that wishes to revise its tariff is permitted to do so by filing a diskette containing only those pages on which the changed material is located. Any such carrier shall file a current effective version of its entire tariff on the first business day of each month. For purposes of this paragraph, "business day" is defined in 1.4(e)(2) of this chapter. * * * * * (e)(1) For contract-based tariffs defined in 61.3(m), a separate letter of transmittal may accompany each tariff filed, or the above format may be modified for filing as many publications as may be desired with one transmittal letter. The transmittals must be numbered in a series separate from transmittals for non-contract tariff filing. Numbers must appear on the face of the transmittal and be in the form of "CTT No. ", using CTT as an abbreviation for contract-based tariff transmittals, or some similar form that indicates that the transmittal is a contract-based tariff transmittal. Contract-based tariffs must also be numbered in a series separate from non-contract-based tariffs. Numbers must be in the form of "CT No. ", using CT as an abbreviation for contract-based tariffs, or some similar form that indicates that the tariff is a contract-based tariff. Each contract-based tariff must be assigned a separate number. Transmittals and tariffs subject to this paragraph shall be filed beginning with the number "1" and shall be numbered consecutively. (2) Composition of contract-based tariffs shall comply with  61.54(b) through (i). (3) Contract-based tariffs shall include the following: (i) The term of the contract, including any renewal options; (ii) A brief description of each of the services provided under the contract; (iii) Minimum volume commitments for each service; (iv) The contract price for each service or services at the volume levels committed to by the customers; (v) A general description of any volume discounts built into the contract rate structure; and (vi) A general description of other classifications, practices and regulations affecting the contract rate. 21. In newly redesignated 61.23, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:  61.23 Notice requirements. * * * * * (c) All tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice. 22. Add 61.25 to subpart C to read as follows:  61.25 References to other instruments. In addition to the cross-references permitted pursuant to section 61.74, a non-dominant carrier may cross-reference in its tariff publication only the rate provisions of another carrier's FCC tariff publication, provided that the following conditions are met: (a) The tariff being cross-referenced must be on file with the Commission and in effect; (b) The issuing carrier must specifically identify in its tariff the cross-referenced tariff by Carrier Name and FCC Tariff Number; (c) The issuing carrier must specifically identify in its tariff the rates being cross-referenced so as to leave no doubt as to the exact rates that will apply, including but not limited to any applicable credits, discounts, promotions; and (d) The issuing carrier must keep its cross-references current. 23. Add a subpart D to part 61, consisting of 61.28, to read as follows: Subpart D - General Tariff Rules for International Dominant Carriers  61.28 International dominant carrier tariff filing requirements. (a) Any carrier classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route due only to a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to 63.10 of this Chapter shall file tariffs for those services on at least one day's notice without cost support. (b) Any carrier classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to 63.10 shall file tariffs for those services pursuant to the notice and cost support requirements for tariff filings of dominant domestic carriers, as set forth in subpart E of this part. (c) Other than the notice and cost support requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route are set forth in subpart C of this part. 24. Designate 61.32 through 61.52, 61.54, 61.58, and 61.59 as subpart E and add a subpart heading entitled "Subpart E - General Rules for Dominant Carriers" immediately preceding 61.32. 25. Add 61.31 to subpart E to read as follows:  61.31 Scope. The rules in this subpart apply to all dominant carriers. 26. Amend 61.32 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:  61.32 Method of filing publications. * * * * * (b) In addition, except for issuing carriers filing tariffing fees electronically, for all tariff publications requiring fees as set forth in part 1, subpart G of this chapter, issuing carriers must submit the original of the transmittal letter (without attachments), FCC Form 159, and the appropriate fee to the Mellon Bank, Pittsburgh, PA, at the address set forth in 1.1105 of this chapter. Issuing carriers submitting tariffing fees electronically should submit the Form 159 and the original cover letter to the Secretary of the Commission in lieu of the Mellon Bank. The Form 159 should display the Electronic Audit Code in the box in the upper left hand corner marked "reserved." Issuing carriers should submit these fee materials on the same date as the submission in paragraph (a). * * * * * 27. In 61.33, revise the first sentence of the introductory text of paragraph (a), and remove and reserve paragraph (h)(2), to read as follows:  61.33 Letters of transmittal. (a) Except as specified in 61.32(b), all publications filed on paper with the Commission must be numbered consecutively by the issuing carrier beginning with Number 1, and must be accompanied by a letter of transmittal, A4 (21 cm x 29.7 cm) or 8« by 11 inches (21.6 cm x 27.9 cm) in size. * * * * * * * * (h) * * * (2) [Reserved]  61.35 [Removed] 28. Remove 61.35.  61.36 [Removed] 29. Remove 61.36. 30. Amend 61.38 by revising paragraph (a), removing and reserving paragraph (b)(3), and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:  61.38 Supporting information to be submitted with letters of transmittal. (a) Scope. This section applies to dominant carriers whose gross annual revenues exceed $500,000 for the most recent 12 month period of operations or are estimated to exceed $500,000 for a representative 12 month period. Local exchange carriers serving 50,000 or fewer access lines in a given study area that are described as subset 3 carriers in 69.602 of this chapter may submit Access Tariff filings for that study area pursuant to either this section or 61.39. However, the Commission may require any carrier to submit such information as may be necessary for a review of a tariff filing. This section (other than the preceding sentence of this paragraph) shall not apply to tariff filings proposing rates for services identified in 61.42(d), (e), and (g). * * * * * (b) * * * (3) [Reserved] * * * * * (g) On each page of cost support material submitted pursuant to this section, the carrier shall indicate the transmittal number under which that page was submitted. 31. Amend 61.39 by revising paragraph (a) and by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:  61.39 Optional supporting information to be submitted with letters of transmittal for Access Tariff filings effective on or after April 1, 1989, by local exchange carriers serving 50,000 or fewer access lines in a given study area that are described as subset 3 carriers in  69.602. (a) Scope. This section provides for an optional method of filing for any local exchange carrier that is described as subset 3 carrier in 69.602, which elects to issue its own Access Tariff for a period commencing on or after April 1, 1989, and which serves 50,000 or fewer access lines in a study area as determined under 36.611(a)(8) of this chapter. However, the Commission may require any carrier to submit such information as may be necessary for review of a tariff filing. This section (other than the preceding sentence of this paragraph) shall not apply to tariff filings of local exchange carriers subject to price cap regulation. * * * * * (f) On each page of cost support material submitted pursuant to this section, the carrier shall indicate the transmittal number under which that page was submitted.  61.41 [Amended] 32. In 61.41, remove and reserve paragraph (a)(1). 33. Amend 61.42 by removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), by adding a sentence at the end of paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(6), and by revising the first sentence of paragraph (g) to read as follows:  61.42 Price cap baskets and service categories. (a) [Reserved] (b) [Reserved] (c) [Reserved] (d) * * * (1) * * * For purposes of  61.41 through 61.49 of this chapter, this basket shall be referred to as the "common line basket." (2) * * * For purposes of  61.41 through 61.49 of this chapter, this basket shall be referred to as the "traffic-sensitive basket." (3) * * * For purposes of  61.41 through 61.49 of this chapter, this basket shall be referred to as the "trunking basket." (4) * * * For purposes of  61.41 through 61.49 of this chapter, this basket shall be referred to as the "interexchange basket." (6) * * * For purposes of  61.41 through 61.49 of this chapter, this basket shall be referred to as the "marketing expense basket." * * * * * (g) New services, other than those within the scope of paragraph (f) of this section, must be included in the affected basket at the first annual price cap tariff filing following completion of the base period in which they are introduced. * * * 34. Revise 61.43 to read as follows:  61.43 Annual price cap filings required. Carriers subject to price cap regulation shall submit annual price cap tariff filings that propose rates for the upcoming tariff year, that make appropriate adjustments to their PCI, API, and SBI values pursuant to 61.45 through 61.47, and that incorporate new services into the PCI, API, or SBI calculations pursuant to 61.45(g), 61.46(b), and 61.47 (b) and (c). Carriers may propose rate, PCI, or other tariff changes more often than annually, consistent with the requirements of 61.59. 61.44 [Reserved] 35. Remove and reserve 61.44. 36. 61.45 is amended as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (b) and (c); b. Revise paragraph (d)(1)(iv); c. In paragraph (f), remove the words "paragraph (c)" and add, in their place, the words "paragraphs (b) and (c)"; and d. Revise paragraphs (i) and (j)(2). e. Remove paragraphs (k) and (l).  61.45 Adjustments to the PCI for local exchange carriers. * * * * * (b)(1)(i) Adjustments to local exchange carrier PCIs, in those carriers' annual access tariff filings, for the traffic-sensitive basket described in  61.42(d)(2), the trunking basket described in  61.42(d)(3), and the marketing expense basket described in  61.42(d)(6), shall be made pursuant to the following formula: PCIt = PCIt-1[1 + w(GDP-PI - X) + Z/R] where GDP-PI = the percentage change in the GDP-PI between the quarter ending six months prior to the effective date of the new annual tariff and the corresponding quarter of the previous year, X = 6.5%, Z = the dollar effect of current regulatory changes when compared to the regulations in effect at the time the PCI was updated to PCIt-1 , measured at base period level of operations, R = an amount calculated by multiplying base period quantities for each rate element in the basket by the price for that rate element at the time the PCI was updated to PCIt-1, inclusive of the products of base period quantities for each PICC established in 69.153 of this Chapter and the portion of that PICC that is associated with the basket, and summing the results, w = R + Z, all divided by R, PCIt = the new PCI value, and PCIt-1 = the immediately preceding PCI value. (ii) Adjustments to local exchange carrier PCIs for the interexchange basket described in  61.42(d)(4), in those carriers' annual access tariff filings, shall be made pursuant to the following formula: PCIt = PCIt-1[1 + w(GDP-PI - X) + Z/R + Y/R] where w = R - (access rate in effect at the time the PCI was updated to PCIt-1 , multiplied by base period demand) + Z, all divided by R, X = 3.0 percent, Y = (new access rate - access rate at the time the PCI was updated to PCIt-1 ) x (base period demand), and all other terms are defined in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. (2) Adjustments to local exchange carrier PCIs, in tariff filings other than the annual access tariff filing, for the traffic-sensitive basket described in  61.42(d)(2), the trunking basket described in  61.42(d)(3), the interexchange basket described in  61.42(d)(4), and the marketing expense basket described in  61.42(d)(6), shall be made pursuant to the formulas set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, except that the "w(GDP-PI - X)" component of those PCI formulas shall not be employed. (c)(1) In the event that a local exchange carrier imposes a per-minute carrier common line charge pursuant to  69.154 of this chapter, and subject to paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section, adjustments to local exchange carrier PCIs in the annual access tariff filing for the common line basket designated in 61.42(d)(1) shall be made pursuant to the following formula: PCIt = PCIt-1[1 + w[(GDP-PI-X-(g/2))/(1+(g/2)) ] + Z/R] where GDP-PI=the percentage change in the GDP-PI between the quarter ending six months prior to the effective date of the new annual tariff and the corresponding quarter of the previous year, X=productivity factor of 6.5%, g=the ratio of minutes of use per access line during the base period, to minutes of use per access line during the previous base period, minus 1, Z = the dollar effect of current regulatory changes when compared to the regulations in effect at the time the PCI was updated to PCIt-1, measured at base period level of operations, R = an amount calculated by multiplying base period quantities for each rate element in the basket by the price for that rate element at the time the PCI was updated to PCIt-1, inclusive of the products of base period quantities for each PICC established in 69.153 of this Chapter and the portion of that PICC that is associated with the common line basket, and summing the results, w = R + Z, all divided by R, PCIt = the new PCI value, and PCIt-1 = the immediately preceding PCI value. (2) Adjustments to local exchange carrier PCIs, in tariff filings other than the annual access tariff filing, for the common line basket described  61.42(d)(1), shall be made pursuant to the formulas set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, except that the "w[ (GDP-PI - X - (g/2))/(1 + (g/2)) ]" component of that PCI formula shall not be employed. In non-annual price cap filings, g will be equal to 0. (3) The formula set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be used by a local exchange carrier only if that carrier is imposing a carrier common line charge pursuant to  69.154 of this chapter. Otherwise, adjustments to local exchange carrier PCIs for the common line basket designated in  61.42(d)(1) shall be made pursuant to the formula set forth in  61.45(b)(1)(i). (d) * * * (1) * * * (iv) changes to the level of obligation associated with the Universal Service Fund obligation described in Part 54 of this chapter; * * * * * (i)(1)(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, and subject to the limitations of paragraph (j) of this section, including but not limited to the Z reductions discussed in paragraph (j)(2), any price cap local exchange carrier that is recovering interconnection charge revenues through per-minute rates pursuant to 69.124 or 69.155 of this chapter shall target, to the extent necessary to eliminate the recovery of any residual interconnection charge revenues through per-minute rates, any PCI reductions associated with the common line and traffic sensitive baskets, designated in  61.42(d)(1) and (2), that result from the application of the formulas in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. (ii) As specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this section, any price cap local exchange carrier that is targeting PCI reductions to the residual interconnection charge pursuant to paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section shall exclude the Z/R component of the PCI for the trunking basket designated in  61.42(d)(3) from those calculations. (iii) Any local exchange carrier that is targeting PCI reductions to the residual interconnection charge pursuant to paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section shall not make any adjustment to its PCIs for the common line and traffic sensitive baskets, designated in  61.42(d)(1) and (2) respectively, as a result of the application of the formulas in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, other than the adjustments resulting from calculation of the Z/R component of those formulas. (iv) The reductions described in paragraph (i)(1)(i) are to be made after the adjustment is made to the PCI for the trunking basket designated in  61.42(d)(3) resulting from the application of the formulas in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, and subject to the limitations of paragraph (j) of this section, any price cap local exchange carrier that is recovering interconnection charge revenues through per-minute rates pursuant to 69.155 of this chapter shall target, to the extent necessary to eliminate the recovery of any residual interconnection charge revenues through per-minute rates, any PCI reductions associated with the basket designated in  61.42(d)(6) that result from the application of the formula in  61.45(b), but excluding from the calculations the Z/R component, with no adjustment being made to the PCIs for the basket designated in  61.42(d)(6). This adjustment, including any adjustment due to the Z/R component, will be made after any adjustment made pursuant to paragraph (i)(1) of this section. (3) [Reserved] (4) Effective January 1, 1998, the reduction in the PCI for the trunking basket designated in 61.42(d)(3) that results from paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this section shall be determined by multiplying the PCI for the trunking basket by one minus the ratio of the sum of the dollar effects of the PCI reductions otherwise applicable to the common line, traffic-sensitive, and marketing expense baskets, to the revenues applicable to the trunking basket. (j) * * * (2) exclude the amount of any exogenous adjustments permitted or required for the common line, traffic sensitive baskets, and marketing baskets, defined in 61.42(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(6), from the retargeting adjustment to the PCI for the trunking basket defined in 61.42(d)(3). Any such exogenous adjustments shall be reflected in the PCIs and SBIs in the same manner as they would have been reflected if their were no targeting. 37. Amend 61.47 to revise paragraph (e), and to remove and reserve paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:  61.47 Adjustments to the SBI; pricing bands. * * * * * (e) Pricing bands shall be established each tariff year for each service category and subcategory within a basket. Each band shall limit the pricing flexibility of the service category, subcategory, or density zone, as reflected in the SBI, to an annual increase of a specified percent listed in this paragraph below, relative to the percentage change in the PCI for that basket, measured from the levels in effect on the last day of the preceding tariff year. For local exchange carriers subject to price cap regulation as that term is defined in  61.3(x), there shall be no lower pricing band for any service category or subcategory. 5%: Local switching (traffic sensitive basket) Information (traffic sensitive basket) Database Access services (traffic sensitive basket) 800 Database Vertical Services subservice (traffic sensitive basket) Billing Name and Address (traffic sensitive basket) Local switching trunk ports (traffic sensitive basket) Signalling Transfer Point Port Termination (traffic sensitive basket) Voice grade (Trunking basket) Voice grade density zones (Trunking basket) Tandem-Switched Transport density zones (Trunking basket) Audio/Video (Trunking basket) Total High Capacity (Trunking basket) DS1 subservice (Trunking basket) DS1 density zones (Trunking basket) DS3 subservice (Trunking basket) DS3 density zones (Trunking basket) Wideband (Trunking basket) 2% Tandem-Switched Transport (Trunking basket) Signalling for Tandem Switching (Trunking basket) 0% Interconnection charge (Trunking basket) (f) [reserved] (g) [reserved] (h) [reserved] * * * * *  61.48 [Amended] 38. Amend 61.48 to remove and reserve paragraphs (a) through (h), and to remove and reserve paragraph (i)(3)(ii). 39. Amend 61.49 to revise paragraph (a), revise paragraph (c), remove and reserve paragraph (f)(1), revise paragraph (g)(1)(ii), remove and reserve paragraph (i)(1), and add new paragraph (l) to read as follows:  61.49 Supporting information to be submitted with letters of transmittal for tariffs of carriers subject to price cap regulation. (a) Each price cap tariff filing must be accompanied by supporting materials sufficient to calculate required adjustments to each PCI, API, and SBI pursuant to the methodologies provided in 61.45, 61.46, and 61.47, as applicable. * * * * * (c) Each price cap tariff filing that proposes rates above the applicable band limits established in 61.47 (e) must be accompanied by supporting materials establishing substantial cause for the proposed rates. * * * * * (f)(1) [reserved] * * * * * (g) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Estimates of the effect of the new tariff on the traffic and revenues from the service to which the new tariff applies, the carrier's other service classifications, and the carrier's overall traffic and revenues. These estimates must include the projected effects on the traffic and revenues for the same representative 12 month period used in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section. * * * * * (l) On each page of cost support material submitted pursuant to this section, the carrier shall indicate the transmittal number under which that page was submitted.  61.50 [Reserved] 40. Remove and reserve 61.50. 41. Remove the undesignated center heading entitled "Specific Rules for Tariff Publications" immediately before 61.51.  61.51 [Reserved] 42. Remove and reserve 61.51. 61.53 [Redesignated] 43. Redesignate 61.53 as 61.83. 44. Amend 61.54 by revising paragraph (b)(3), redesignating paragraph (c)(1) as paragraph (c)(1)(i), adding paragraph (c)(1)(ii), redesignating paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(3)(i), adding paragraph (c)(3)(ii), and revising paragraph (i)(3), to read as follows:  61.54 Composition of tariffs. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) Expiration date. Subject to 61.59, when the entire tariff or supplement is to expire with a fixed date, the expiration date must be shown in connection with the effective date in the following manner. Changes in expiration date must be made pursuant to the notice requirements of 61.58, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission. Expires at the end of ______ (date) unless sooner canceled, changed, or extended. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Alternatively, the carrier is permitted to number its tariff pages, other than the check sheet, to reflect the section number of the tariff as well as the page. For example, under this system, pages in section 1 of the tariff would be numbered 1-1, 1-2, etc., and pages in section 2 of the tariff would be numbered 2-1, 2-2, etc. Issuing carriers shall utilize only one page numbering system throughout its tariff. * * * * * (3) * * * (ii) On each page, the carrier shall indicate the transmittal number under which that page was submitted. * * * * * (i) * * * (3) Items which have not been in effect 30 days when brought forward on revised pages must be shown as reissued, in the manner prescribed in  61.54(i)(1). The number and original effective date of the tariff publication in which the matter was originally published must be associated with the reissued matter. Items which have been in effect 30 days or more and are brought forward without change on revised pages must not be shown as reissued items.  61.55 [Removed] 45. Remove 61.55. 46. Redesignate 61.56 as 61.86, and revise it to read as follows:  61.86 Supplements. A carrier may not file a supplement except to suspend or cancel a tariff publication, or to defer the effective date of pending tariff revisions. A carrier may file a supplement for the voluntary deferral of a tariff publication. 47. Redesignate 61.57 as 61.87, and revise to read as follows:  61.87 Cancellation of tariffs. (a) A carrier may cancel an entire tariff. Cancellation of a tariff automatically cancels every page and supplement to that tariff except for the canceling Title Page or first page. (1) If the existing service(s) will be provided under another carrier's tariff, then (i) the carrier whose tariff is being canceled must revise the Title Page or the first page of its tariff indicating that the tariff is no longer effective, or (ii) the carrier under whose tariff the service(s) will be provided must revise the Title Page or first page of the tariff to be canceled, using the name and numbering shown in the heading of the tariff to be canceled, indicating that the tariff is no longer effective. This carrier must also file with the Commission the new tariff provisions reflecting the service(s) being canceled. Both filings must be effective on the same date and may be filed under the same transmittal. (2) If a carrier canceling its tariff intends to cease to provide existing service, then it must revise the Title Page or first page of its tariff indicating that the tariff is no longer effective. (3) A carrier canceling its tariff, as described above, must comply with 61.22 or 61.54(b)(1) and 61.54(b)(5), as applicable. (b) When a carrier cancels a tariff as described above, the canceling Title Page or the first page of the canceled tariff must show where all rates and regulations will be found except for paragraph (c) of this section. The Title Page or first page of the new tariff must indicate the name of the carrier and tariff number where the canceled material had been found. (c) When a carrier ceases to provide service(s) without a successor, it must cancel its tariff pursuant to the notice requirements of 61.23 or 61.58, as applicable, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission. 48. Amend 61.58 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(2); b. Revise paragraph (a)(3); c. Remove and reserve paragraphs (b), (c), and (d); d. Amend paragraph (e) by revising the paragraph heading, redesignating paragraph (e)(3) as paragraph (e)(4), and adding new paragraph (e)(3); and e. Remove and reserve paragraph (f).  61.58 Notice requirements. (a) * * * (2)(i) Local exchange carriers may file tariffs pursuant to the streamlined tariff filing provisions of section 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act. Such a tariff may be filed on 7 days' notice if it proposes only rate decreases. Any other tariff filed pursuant to section 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act, including those that propose a rate increase or any change in terms and conditions, shall be filed on 15 days' notice. Any tariff filing made pursuant to section 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act must comply with the applicable cost support requirements specified in this part. (ii) Local exchange carriers may elect not to file tariffs pursuant to section 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act. Any such tariffs shall be filed on at least 16 days' notice. (iii) Except for tariffs filed pursuant to section 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act, the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, may require the deferral of the effective date of any filing made on less than 120 days' notice, so as to provide for a maximum of 120 days' notice, or of such other maximum period of notice permitted by section 203(b) of the Communications Act, regardless of whether petitions under section 1.773 of this chapter have been filed. (3) Tariff filings proposing corrections or voluntarily deferring the effective date of a pending tariff revision must be made on at least 3 days' notice, and may be filed notwithstanding the provisions of 61.59. Corrections to tariff materials not yet effective cannot take effect before the effective date of the original material. Deferrals must take effect on or before the current effective date of the pending tariff revisions being deferred. * * * * * (b) [Reserved] (c) [Reserved] (d) [Reserved] (e) Non-price cap carriers and/or services. * * * * * * * * (3) Alascom, Inc. shall file its annual tariff revisions for its Common Carrier Services (Alascom Tariff F.C.C No. 11) on at least 35 days' notice. * * * * * (f) [Reserved] 49. Redesignate the text of 61.59 as 61.59(a), revise redesignated paragraph (a), and add new paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:  61.59 Effective period required before changes. (a) Except as provided in 61.58(a)(3) or except as otherwise authorized by the Commission, new rates or regulations must be effective for at least 30 days before a dominant carrier will be permitted to make any change. (b) Changes to rates and regulations that have not yet become effective, i.e., are pending, may not be made unless the effective date of the proposed changes is at least 30 days after the scheduled effective date of the pending revisions. (c) Changes to rates and regulations that have taken effect but have not been in effect for at least 30 days may not be made unless the scheduled effective date of the proposed changes is at least 30 days after the effective date of the existing regulations. 50. Designate 61.67 through 61.74, and redesignated  61.83, 61.86, and 61.87, as subpart F, and add a subpart heading entitled "Subpart F - Specific Rules for Tariff Publications of Dominant and Nondominant Carriers" immediately preceding 61.67. 51. Add 61.66 to subpart F to read as follows:  61.66 Scope. The rules in this subpart apply to all carriers, unless otherwise noted. 61.67 [Removed] 52. Remove 61.67. 53. Revise 61.69 to read as follows:  61.69 Rejection. When a tariff publication is rejected by the Commission, its number may not be used again. This includes, but is not limited to, such publications as tariff numbers or specific page revision numbers. The rejected tariff publication may not be referred to as either cancelled or revised. Within five business days of the release date of the Commission's Order rejecting such tariff publication, the issuing carrier shall file tariff revisions removing the rejected material, unless the Commission's Order establishes a different date for this filing. The publication that is subsequently issued in lieu of the rejected tariff publication must bear the notation In lieu of ---, rejected by the Federal Communications Commission. 61.71 [Removed] 54. Remove 61.71. 55. Revise 61.72 to read as follows:  61.72 Public information requirements. (a) Issuing carriers must make available accurate and timely information pertaining to rates and regulations subject to tariff filing requirements. (b) Issuing carriers must, at a minimum, provide a telephone number for public inquiries about information contained in its tariffs. This telephone number should be made readily available to all interested parties. (c) Any issuing carrier that is an incumbent local exchange carrier, and chooses to establish an Internet web site, must make its tariffs available on that web site, in addition to the Commission's web site. 56. Add new paragraphs (e) and (f) to 61.74 to read as follows:  61.74 References to other instruments. * * * * * (e) Tariffs may reference other FCC tariffs that are in effect and on file with the Commission for purposes of determining mileage, or specifying the operating centers at which a specific service is available. (f) Tariffs may reference technical publications which describe the engineering, specifications, or other technical aspects of a service offering, provided the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The tariff must contain a general description of the service offering, including basic parameters and structural elements of the offering; (2) The technical publication includes no rates, regulatory terms, or conditions which are required to be contained in the tariff, and any revisions to the technical publication do not affect rates, regulatory terms, or conditions included in the tariff, and do not change the basic nature of the offering; (3) The tariff indicates where the technical publication can be obtained; (4) The referenced technical publication is publicly available before the tariff is scheduled to take effect; and (5) The issuing carrier regularly revises its tariff to refer to the current edition of the referenced technical publication. 57. Remove the undesignated center heading "Concurrences" immediately before 61.131. 58. Designate 61.131 through 61.136 as subpart G, and add a subpart heading entitled "Subpart G - Concurrences" immediately preceding 61.131. 59. Amend 61.132 by adding two sentences at the end of the section, to read as follows:  61.132 Method of filing concurrences. * * * Nondominant issuing carriers shall file revisions reflecting concurrences in their tariffs on the notice period specified in 61.23 of this part. Dominant issuing carriers shall file concurrences in their tariffs on the notice periods specified in 61.58(a)(2) or 61.58(e)(1)(iii) of this part. 60. Remove the undesignated center heading "Applications for Special Permission" immediately preceding 61.151. 61. Designate 61.151 through 61.153 as subpart H, and add a subpart heading entitled "Subpart H - Applications for Special Permission" immediately preceding 61.151. 62. Amend 61.153(b) by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:  61.153 Method of filing applications. * * * * * (b) In addition, except for issuing carriers filing tariffing fees electronically, for all special permission applications requiring fees as set forth in part 1, subpart G of this chapter, the issuing carrier must submit the original of the application letter (without attachments), FCC Form 159, and the appropriate fee to the Mellon Bank, Pittsburgh, PA at the address set forth in 1.1105 of this chapter. Issuing carriers submitting tariffing fees electronically should submit the Form 159 and the original cover letter to the Secretary of the Commission in lieu of the Mellon Bank. The Form 159 should display the Electronic Audit Code in the box in the upper left hand corner marked "reserved." Issuing carriers should submit these fee materials on the same date as the submission in paragraph (a) of this section. * * * * * 63. Remove the undesignated center heading "Adoption of Tariffs and Other Documents of Predecessor Carriers" immediately preceding 61.171. 64. Designate 61.171 through 61.172 as subpart I, and add a subpart heading entitled "Subpart I - Adoption of Tariffs and Other Documents of Predecessor Carriers" immediately preceding 61.171. 65. Remove the undesignated center heading "Suspensions" immediately preceding 61.191. 66. Designate 61.191 through 61.193 as subpart J, and add a subpart heading entitled "Subpart J - Suspensions" immediately preceding 61.191. 67. Revise 61.191 to read as follows:  61.191 Carrier to file supplement when notified of suspension. If a carrier is notified by the Commission that its tariff publication has been suspended, the carrier must file, within five business days from the release date of the suspension order, a consecutively numbered supplement without an effective date, which specifies the schedules which have been suspended. 68. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 47 CFR part 61, remove the words "Chief, Tariff Review Branch" and add, in their place, the words "Chief, Tariff and Pricing Analysis Branch" in the following places: a. Section 61.32(c); b. Section 61.33(a)(3); c. Section 61.38(c)(1); d. Section 61.49(g)(2)(i); e. Section 61.153(c). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 69. The authority citation continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 403, and 533, unless otherwise noted. 70. Amend 63.10 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:  63.10 Regulatory classification of U.S. international carriers. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) File international service tariffs pursuant to 61.28 of this chapter. PART 69 - ACCESS CHARGES 71. The authority citation continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 220, 254, 403.  69.2 [Amended] 72. In 69.2, remove and reserve paragraph (tt). 73. Amend 69.3 to revise paragraph (a), revise the introductory text of paragraph (e), revise paragraph (e)(6), revise paragraph (f), revise paragraph (h), revise the introductory text of paragraph (i), and to remove and reserve paragraph (j), to read as follows:  69.3 Filing of access service tariffs. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section, a tariff for access service shall be filed with this Commission for a two-year period. Such tariffs shall be filed with a scheduled effective date of July 1. Such tariff filings shall be limited to rate level changes. * * * * * (e) A telephone company or group of telephone companies may file a tariff that is not an association tariff. Such a tariff may cross-reference the association tariff for some access elements and include separately computed charges of such company or companies for other elements. Any such tariff must comply with the requirements hereinafter provided: * * * * * (6) A telephone company or companies that elect to file such a tariff shall notify the association not later than December 31 of the preceding year, if such company or companies did not file such a tariff in the preceding biennial period or cross-reference association charges in such preceding period that will be cross-referenced in the new tariff. A telephone company or companies that elect to file such a tariff not in the biennial period shall file its tariff to become effective July 1 for a period of one year. Thereafter, such telephone company or companies must file its tariff pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section. * * * * * (f) (1) A tariff for access service provided by a telephone company that is required to file an access tariff pursuant to 61.38 of this Chapter shall be filed for a biennial period and with a scheduled effective date of July 1 of any even numbered year. (2) A tariff for access service provided by a telephone company that may file an access tariff pursuant to 61.39 of this Chapter shall be filed for a biennial period and with a scheduled effective date of July 1 of any odd numbered year. Any such telephone company that does not elect to file an access tariff pursuant to the 61.39 procedures, and does not participate in the Association tariff, and does not elect to become subject to price cap regulation, must file an access tariff pursuant to 61.38 for a biennial period and with a scheduled effective date of July 1 of any even numbered year. (3) For purposes of computing charges for access elements other than Common Line elements to be effective on July 1 of any even-numbered year, the association may compute rate changes based upon statistical methods which represent a reasonable equivalent to the cost support information otherwise required under part 61 of this chapter. * * * * * (h) Local exchange carriers subject to price cap regulation as that term is defined in 61.3(x) of this chapter, shall file with this Commission a price cap tariff for access service for an annual period. Such tariffs shall be filed to meet the notice requirements of 61.58 of this Chapter, with a scheduled effective date of July 1. Such tariff filings shall be limited to changes in the Price Cap Indexes, rate level changes (with corresponding adjustments to the affected Actual Price Indexes and Service Band Indexes), and the incorporation of new services into the affected indexes as required by 61.49 of this chapter. (i) The following rules apply to the withdrawal from Association tariffs under the provision of paragraph (e)(6) or (e)(9) of this section or both by telephone companies electing to file price cap tariffs pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section. * * * * *  69.111 [Amended] 74. Amend 69.111(g)(4), by removing the word "61.43(e)(2)(v)" and adding, in its place, the word "61.42(e)(2)(v)", and by removing the word "61.43(e)(2)(vi)" and adding, in its place, the word "61.42(e)(2)(vi)".  69.113 [Amended] 75. In 69.113(c), remove the word "61.3(v)" and add, in its place, the word "61.3(x)".  69.114 [Amended] 76. In 69.114(a), remove the word "61.3(v)" and add, in its place, the word "61.3(x)". 77. Amend 69.111(g)(4), by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (d)(1)(i), and (d)(2)(i), to read as follows:  69.153 Presubscribed interexchange carrier charge (PICC). * * * * * (c) * * * (1) One twelfth of the sum of annual common line revenues and residual interconnection charge revenues permitted under our price cap rules divided by the historical base period local exchange service subscriber lines in use during such annual period, minus the maximum subscriber line charge calculated pursuant to  69.152(d)(2); or * * * * * * (d) * * * (1) * * * (i) One twelfth of the annual common line, residual interconnection charge, and  69.156(a) marketing expense revenues permitted under our price cap rules, less the maximum amounts permitted to be recovered through the recovery mechanisms under  69.152, 69.153(c), and 69.156(b) and (c), divided by the total number of historical base period non-primary residential and multi-line business subscriber lines in use during such annual period; or * * * (2) * * * (i) One twelfth of the annual common line, residual interconnection charge, and  69.156(a) marketing expense revenues permitted under parts 61 and 69 of our rules, less the maximum amounts permitted to be recovered through the recovery mechanisms under  69.152, 69.153(c) and (d)(1), and 69.156(b) and (c), divided by the total number of historical base period multi-line business subscriber lines in use during such annual period; or * * * Concurring Statement of Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth Re: 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Part 61 of the Commission's Rules and Related Tariffing Requirements (CC Docket No. 98-131) I support adoption of this Report and Order wherein, pursuant to the Commission's duty under Section 11(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sect. 161(b), we have modified the Commission's rules regarding tariff filing by eliminating those that no longer serve any useful purpose or are duplicative. I write separately to express my support for additional regulatory relief that is rejected in this Order. First, I would support eliminating minimum effective tariff periods for dominant carriers. I find no adequate justification for this governmental restraint on business activity. I find unpersuasive the Commission's explanation that the minimum effective period "helps the Commission fulfill its consumer protection function." Given the size and sophistication of these carriers' tariff customers, I do not believe this is an adequate basis for continued regulation of an otherwise everyday business decision. Second, I would support treating rates for new services filed by rate-of-return carriers as presumed lawful if those rates do not exceed the rates for the same service offered by a price cap LEC in an adjacent area. I believe that the Commission should be looking for reasonable means of avoiding the burdens associated with maintaining and monitoring countless and tedious records of costs, especially when, as here, a reasonable surrogate is available. The other regulations at issue here were chosen for repeal or modification as part of the Commission's 1998 Biennial Review, which was conducted pursuant to Section 11(a) of the Act, Id. at Sect. 161(a). However, as thoroughly described in my Report on Implementation of Section 11 by the Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 21, 1998), which can be found on the FCC WWW site at , I believe that the 1998 Section 11(a) review was not as thorough as it should have been. I look forward to working with the chairman and other commissioners on the 2000 Biennial Review, planning for which should begin immediately. * * * * * * *