Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27927

§ 502.410 Representation of parties.

(a) The provisions of § 502.21 apply to

representation of parties in dispute

resolution proceedings, as do the

provisions of § 502.27 regarding

representation of parties by

nonattorneys.

(b) A neutral in a dispute resolution

proceeding may require participants to

demonstrate authority to enter into a

binding agreement reached by means of

a dispute resolution proceeding.

§ 502.411 Mediation and other alternative

means of dispute resolution.

(a) Parties are encouraged to utilize

mediation or other forms of alternative

dispute resolution in all formal

proceedings. The Commission also

encourages those with disputes to

pursue mediation in lieu of, or prior to,

the initiation of a Commission

proceeding.

(b) Any party may request, at any

time, that a mediator or other neutral be

appointed to assist the parties in

reaching a settlement. If such a request

is made in a proceeding assigned to an

Administrative Law Judge, the

provisions of § 502.91 apply. For all

other matters, alternative dispute

resolution services may be requested

directly from the Commission’s

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Specialist, who may serve as the neutral

if the parties agree or who will arrange

for the appointment of a neutral

acceptable to all parties.

(c) The neutral shall convene and

conduct mediation or other appropriate

dispute resolution proceedings with the

parties.

(d) Ex-parte Communications. Except

with respect to arbitration, the

provisions of 502.11 do not apply to

dispute resolution proceedings, and

mediators are expressly authorized to

conduct private sessions with parties.

By the Commission.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12500 Filed 5–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 61

[CC Docket No. 96–262; FCC 01–146]

Access Charge Reform; Reform of

Access Charges Imposed by

Competitive Local Exchange Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

tariffed competitive LEC-provided

access service for toll free, or ‘‘8YY,’’

numbers should be benchmarked to a

different figure than the Commission

has adopted for CLEC tariffed switched

access traffic generally.

DATES: Comments are due by June 20,

2001. Reply comments are due by July

20, 2001. Written comments by the

public on the proposed and/or modified

information collections discussed in

this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking are due by June 20, 2001.

Written comments must be submitted by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) on the proposed and/or modified

information collections by July 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to

the Commission’s Secretary, Magalie

Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the information

collection(s) contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov and to Edward C.

Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503, or via the

Internet to vhuth@omb.eop.gov. Parties

should also send one paper copy of their

filings to Jane Jackson, Common Carrier

Bureau, Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Room 5–A225, Washington, DC 20554.

In addition, commenters must send

diskette copies to the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey H. Dygert, Common Carrier

Bureau, (202) 418–1500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96–262

released on April 27, 2001. The full text

of this document is available for public

inspection during regular business

hours in the FCC Reference Center,

Room CY–A257, 445 Twelfth Street,

SW., Washington, DC, 20554.

This FNPRM contains proposed

information collection(s) subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA). It has been submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB,

the general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed information collections

contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The FNPRM contains a proposed

information collection. The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

invites the general public and OMB to

comment on the information

collection(s) contained in this FNPRM,

as required by the PRA, Public Law

104–13. Public and agency comments

on the proposed and/or modified

information collections discussed in

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are

due by June 20, 2001. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections by July 20, 2001.

Comments should address: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

Synopsis of FNPRM

I. Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. Shortly before we issued the final

rule that is published elsewhere in this

issue, AT&T asserted, for the first time

in this proceeding, that CLEC

originating 8YY, toll-free traffic should

be subject to a different benchmark

scheme than other categories of

switched access traffic. AT&T argues

that the benchmark for CLEC 8YY traffic

should immediately move to the access

rate of the competing ILEC and that

CLECs should be mandatorily detariffed

above that point. In support of this

position, AT&T asserts that certain

CLECs with higher access charges

attempt to obtain as customers end users

that typically generate high volumes of

8YY traffic, such as hotels and

universities. AT&T further asserts that

some CLECs then ‘‘install limited, highcapacity facilities designed only to

handle 8YY traffic’’ and ‘‘share their

access revenues with the customers

generating the [8YY] traffic’’ through

agreements that provide for payments to

the end user based on the level of 8YY

27928 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

traffic it generates. AT&T contends that

such arrangements do not promote the

development of local exchange

competition. Rather, it argues that these

arrangements merely create the

incentive for end users artificially to

generate heavy 8YY traffic loads, which,

in turn generate revenues for CLECs and

their end-user customers.

2. Given the paucity of record

evidence on this issue, we seek

comment generally on AT&T’s proposal

immediately to benchmark CLEC 8YY

access services to the ILEC rate. Is the

generation of 8YY traffic in order to

collect greater access charges, as AT&T

complains, something that the

Commission should attempt to address

through a rulemaking, or should the

IXCs be left to address specific instances

of abuse directly with the relevant

CLEC, with the aid of the Commission’s

complaint process where appropriate?

In this regard, we note AT&T’s assertion

that one recent case of apparent abuse,

confirmed by WorldCom, arose from the

sequential dialing of over 800,000 8YY

calls by a single end user. It appears

that, even without the rule it now

requests, AT&T may, through

discussions with the relevant CLEC,

have been able to act to prevent

payment for improperly generated 8YY

access minutes.

3. We seek comment on the

magnitude of the potential problem with

8YY traffic that AT&T identifies. AT&T

estimates that approximately 30% of its

CLEC access traffic is generated by 8YY

aggregators that, it speculates, have

revenue-sharing agreements with their

end-user subscribers. Is this an accurate

figure across the industry? How many

minutes and what premium over the

competing ILEC rate does this

represent? More generally, what

proportion of CLEC access traffic is

composed of originating 8YY service?

What proportion of CLEC end users

have 8YY revenue-sharing agreements

with their carrier?

4. Are CLECs continuing to offer 8YY

revenue-sharing agreements to their new

end users, or are they currently

available only to end users that

negotiated them at some point in the

past? Do CLECs notice a difference in

the 8YY traffic patterns generated by

end users with revenue-sharing

agreements, compared to those end

users without such agreements? What

are the typical terms of a revenuesharing agreement? Do they provide for

payment of a per-minute fee for 8YY

traffic, a per-call fee or some other

arrangement? What is the magnitude of

the fee paid? How, if at all, will the

Commission’s imposition of the

switched-access benchmark affect

CLECs’ existing revenue-sharing

agreements?

5. We are concerned that AT&T’s

proposed solution to the problem it

identifies may paint with too broad of

a brush. Does the existence of some

CLECs’ revenue-sharing agreements

justify immediately limiting CLEC

tariffed access rates for all 8YY traffic to

the rate of the competing ILEC? Should

the Commission instead impose such a

limitation only on those CLECs that

actually offer revenue-sharing

agreements to their end users?

6. Additionally, we seek comment on

AT&T’s assertion that it promotes

neither appropriate policy goals nor the

development of local exchange

competition when a CLEC carries an

end user’s 8YY traffic without also

providing that end user with local

exchange service or other types of

access service. Would we be justified in

immediately tying 8YY access tariffs to

the ILEC rate for all CLECs, regardless

of the services that they provide to their

end users? Or would such a rule be

appropriate, if at all, only for those

CLECs that carry exclusively their end

users’ 8YY traffic? How does the

presence or absence of revenue-sharing

agreements, discussed, fit into the

analysis of whether a CLEC’s service

offerings support restricting their

tariffed 8YY access rates to the

competing ILEC’s rate?

7. We question whether, at bottom,

CLEC 8YY traffic is inherently worthy of

lower access charges than are other

types of access traffic. A CLEC provides

a closely similar service and uses

similar or identical facilities, regardless

of whether it provides originating 8YY

access service, or terminating or

originating access service for

conventional 1+ calls. Accordingly, we

seek comment on whether the presence

of certain incentives to generate

artificially high levels of 8YY traffic

necessarily justifies reducing the tariffed

rate for all such traffic immediately to

the ILEC rate. Should we instead

presume that there exists some

‘‘legitimate’’ level of CLEC 8YY traffic

that should be treated as other

categories of access traffic and subject to

a lower benchmark only the traffic that

exceeds this ‘‘legitimate’’ level? If this is

an appropriate alternative, how should

we define the level at or below which

8YY access traffic may be subject to the

higher tariff benchmark that we permit

for other categories of CLEC access

service? Additionally, we seek comment

on any other reasons that CLEC 8YY

traffic should be subjected to a different

tariff benchmark than are other

categories of CLEC access traffic. We

also seek comment on whether, if we

adopt a different benchmark for 8YY

access services, there are any different

tariff filing requirements or timetables

that we might adopt to account for the

resources available to small entities.

Commenters should indicate whether

and how such provisions would be

consistent with our goals in this

proceeding, including our obligation to

ensure just and reasonable rates for

interstate access services.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

8. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared this present Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in this Further

Notice. Written public comments are

requested on this IRFA. Comments must

be identified as responses to the IRFA

and must be filed by the deadlines for

comments on this Notice, which are set

out. The Commission will send a copy

of this Further Notice, including this

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration

(SBA). In addition, this Further Notice

and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be

published in the Federal Register.

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Action

9. In this Further Notice, the

Commission sets a benchmark for CLEC

interstate switched access services that

declines over time to the competing

ILEC rate. In the Further Notice, the

Commission seeks comment on a

proposal offered by AT&T to move

immediately the benchmark for CLEC

8YY access services to the competing

ILEC rate and to mandatorily detariff

CLEC interstate access rates for such

8YY traffic above that point. The

Commission seeks comment on the

nature and extent of the problem alleged

by AT&T and on various means of

addressing CLEC 8YY access service

rates. Through the Further Notice, the

Commission seeks to ensure that CLEC

rates for 8YY access services are just

and reasonable.

2. Legal Basis

10. The legal basis for the action as

proposed for this rulemaking is

contained in sections 1–5, 201–205, 208,

251–271, 403, 502, and 503 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–155, 201–205,

208, 251–271, 403, 502, and 503.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27929

3. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities To Which the

Proposed Action May Apply

11. The RFA directs agencies to

provide a description of and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of

small entities that may be affected by

the proposed rules, if adopted. To

estimate the number of small entities

that may be affected by the proposed

rules, we first consider the statutory

definition of ‘‘small entity’’ under the

RFA. The RFA generally defines ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the term ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act, unless

the Commission has developed one or

more definitions that are appropriate to

its activities. Under the Small Business

Act, a ‘‘small business concern’’ is one

that is independently owned and

operated; is not dominant in its field of

operation; and meets any additional

criteria established by the SBA. The

SBA has defined a small business for

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

categories 4812 (Radiotelephone

Communications) and 4813 (Telephone

Communications, Except

Radiotelephone) to be small entities

when they have no more than 1,500

employees.

12. The rules adopted in this order

apply to CLECs and IXCs. Neither the

Commission nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small CLECs or small

IXCs. The closest applicable definition

for these carrier-types under SBA rules

is for telephone communications

companies other than radiotelephone

(wireless) companies. The most reliable

source of information regarding the

number of these carriers nationwide of

which we are aware appears to be the

data that telecommunications carriers

file annually in connection with the

Commission’s universal services

requirements. According to our most

recent data, 349 companies reported

that they were engaged in the provision

of either competitive access services or

competitive local exchange services

(referred to collectively as CLECs) and

204 companies reported that they were

engaged in the provision of

interexchange services. Among these

companies, we estimate that

approximately 297 of the CLECs have

1500 or fewer employees and that

approximately 163 of the IXCs have

1500 or fewer employees. Although it

seems certain that some of these carriers

are not independently owned and

operated, we are unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the

number of these carriers that would

qualify as small business concerns

under SBA’s definition. Consequently,

we estimate that there are 297 or fewer

small CLECs, and 163 or fewer small

IXCs that may be affected by the

decisions and rules adopted in this

order.

4. Description of Proposed Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

13. In the CLEC Access Order, the

Commission sets a benchmark for CLEC

interstate switched access services that

declines over time to the competing

ILEC rate. Through the Further Notice,

the Commission seeks comment on

whether it should move immediately

the benchmark for CLEC 8YY access

services to the competing ILEC rate and

mandatorily detariff CLEC interstate

access rates for such 8YY access

services above that point. Adopting this

proposal may require CLECs to refile

tariffs with the Commission or to

negotiate contracts with IXCs, rather

than filing tariffs.

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

14. The RFA requires an agency to

describe any significant alternatives that

it has considered in reaching its

proposed approach, which may include

the following four alternatives the

establishment of differing compliance or

reporting requirements or timetables

that take into account the resources

available to small entities; the

clarification, consolidation, or

simplification of compliance or

reporting requirements under the rule

for small entities; the use of

performance, rather than design,

standards; and an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,

for small entities.

15. As mentioned, through the

Further Notice, the Commission seeks to

ensure that CLEC rates for 8YY access

services are just and reasonable. Our

proposals may affect CLECs, by altering

the rates that they may tariff for 8YY

access services. At the same time, our

proposals might affect indirectly IXCs

that must pay access charges for 8YY

traffic. Because there are both small

entity IXCs and small entity CLECs—

with conflicting interests in this

proceeding—we expect that small

entities may be affected by any

approach that we adopt. We seek an

approach that both reduces

opportunities for regulatory arbitrage

and minimizes the burdens placed on

carriers.

16. Among the alternatives proposed,

the Commission seeks comment

whether it should move immediately

the benchmark for CLEC 8YY access

services to the competing ILEC rate and

mandatorily detariff CLEC interstate

access rates for such 8YY access

services above that point. The

Commission seeks comment, to the

extent that it finds that a separate

benchmark is appropriate for 8YY

access rates, on whether it should

instead impose such a limitation only

on those CLECs that offer revenuesharing agreements to their end users or

only on those CLECs that do not offer

local exchange services in addition to

their 8YY access services. Alternatively,

the Commission seeks comment on

whether the Commission should take no

additional action and whether IXCs

should be left to address specific

instances of abuse directly with the

relevant CLEC, with the aid of the

Commission’s complaint process where

appropriate.

17. We also seek comment on

whether, if we adopt a different

benchmark for 8YY access services,

there are any different tariff filing

requirements or timetables that we

might adopt to account for the resources

available to small entities. We ask

commenters to indicate whether and

how such provisions would be

consistent with our goals in this

proceeding, including our obligation to

ensure just and reasonable rates for

interstate access services.

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

18. None.

B. Comment Filing Procedures

19. Pursuant to §§ 1.415, 1.419, and

1.430 of the Commission’s rules,

interested parties may file comments by

June 20, 2001, and reply comments by

July 20, 2001. All filings should refer to

CC Docket No. 96–262. Comments may

be filed using the Commission’s

Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS) or by filing paper copies.

Comments filed through the ECFS can

be sent as an electronic file via the

Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of

an electronic submission must be filed.

In completing the transmittal screen,

commenters should include their full

name, Postal Service mailing address,

and the applicable docket number, CC

Docket No. 96–262. Parties may also

submit an electronic comment by

Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions

for e-mail comments, commenters

should send an e-mail to

27930 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

<ecfs@fcc.gov>, and should include the

following words in the body of the

message: ‘‘get form <your e-mail

address>.’’ A sample form and

directions will be sent in reply.

20. Parties that choose to file by paper

must file an original and four copies of

each filing. All filings must be sent to

the Commission’s Secretary, Magalie

Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Room TW–B204, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554. Regardless of

whether parties choose to file

electronically or by paper, parties

should also serve: (1) Jane Jackson,

Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th

Street, SW., Room 5–A225, Washington,

DC 20554; and (2) the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), 445

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,

Washington, DC 20554, (202) 857–3800,

with copies of any documents filed in

this proceeding. Comments and reply

comments will be available for public

inspection during regular business

hours in the FCC Reference Center,

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

21. Parties that choose to file by paper

should also submit their comments on

diskette to the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036. These

submissions should be on a 3.5-inch

diskette formatted in a Windowscompatible format using Microsoft Word

or compatible software. The diskette

should be accompanied by a cover letter

and should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labeled with the commenter’s name,

proceeding (including the docket

number, CC Docket No. 96–262), type of

pleading (comment or reply comment),

date of submission, and the name of the

electronic file on the diskette. The label

should also include the following

phrase: ‘‘Disk Copy—Not an Original.’’

Each diskette should contain only one

party’s pleadings, preferably in a single

electronic file.

22. Comments and reply comments

must comply with § 1.49 and all other

applicable sections of the Commission’s

rules. We also direct all interested

parties to include the name of the filing

party and the date of the filing on each

page of their comments and reply

comments.

23. That this proceeding will continue

to be governed by ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’

ex parte procedures that are applicable

to non-restricted proceedings under 47

CFR 1.1206. This will provide an

opportunity for all interested parties to

receive notice of the various issues

raised in ex parte presentations made to

the Commission in this proceeding; it

will also allow interested parties to file

responses or rebuttals to proposals made

on the record in this proceeding. We

find that it is in the public interest to

continue this proceeding’s designation

as ‘‘permit-but-disclose.’’

24. Alternative formats (computer

diskette, large print, audio recording,

and Braille) are available to persons

with disabilities by contacting Brian

Millin at (202) 418–7426 voice, (202)

418–7365 TTY, or <bmillin@fcc.gov>.

This further notice of proposed

rulemaking can also be downloaded in

Microsoft Word and ASCII formats at

<http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/cpd>.

III. Ordering Clauses

25. Pursuant to sections 1–5, 201–205,

303(r), 403, 502, and 503 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, this Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking is hereby

adopted.

26. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, including the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12756 Filed 5–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P