NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** $//R&O, Pt. 61, Metric Conversion, FCC 96-108//$ $/ Sec. 203 Schedules of Charges /$ $/ Sec. 61.1 Purpose and application /$ $/// FCC 96-108 3/26/96 ///$ ///newjob/// Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 FCC 96-108 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment to Part 61 of the ) Commission's Rules Requiring Metric ) CC Docket No. 93-55 Conversion of Tariff Publications ) and Supporting Information ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: March 12, 1996; Released: March 29, 1: By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Congress enacted the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (Metric Conversion Act) to coordinate national conversion to the metric system of weights and measures. In response, the Commission adopted its own metric conversion program and converted units of measurement in a number of its rules to the metric system. In 1993, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it proposed to amend Part 61 of its rules to mandate metric conversion of common carrier tariff publications and supporting information ("tariff materials") (Part 61 Metric NPRM). While such conversion was not required by the Metric Conversion Act, the Commission tentatively concluded it would be consistent with the national metric policy. Accordingly, the Part 61 Metric NPRM sought comment on several conversion options. In response, 14 parties filed comments and two filed reply comments. 2. Because this Commission is not obligated to use metric units of measure in all its proceedings and processes in which such measures might apply, we must decide on a case-by-case basis whether the public benefits of metric conversion outweigh the burdens involved. In the present case, for reasons explained below we conclude that it is not in the public interest to require common carriers to convert to the metric system units of measure appearing in their tariff materials. Accordingly, in this Report and Order we do not adopt any of the proposed conversion options and we terminate this proceeding. II. BACKGROUND 3. In the Part 61 Metric NPRM, the Commission expressed its belief that distance-sensitive units in tariff filings under Part 61 of its rules should be expressed in metric units. Accordingly, that NPRM included three options for achieving conversion of common carrier tariff materials to the metric system. Under Method Option 1, the Conversion Table Option, carriers would be required to include, in the general rules section of their tariff materials, a table for converting non-metric units to metric units. Under Option 2, carriers would be required to include, in the applicable rate section of their tariffs and in supporting information, the metric unit and corresponding rate in parenthesis beside the non-metric unit and rate (e.g., $4.00 per mile ($2.50 per kilometer)). Under Option 3, carriers would be required to include only the metric unit and related rate in the applicable rate section of their tariff materials. To aid tariff users not familiar with the metric system, Option 3 would require inclusion of appropriate conversion tables in tariff materials. Because of the extensive tariff revisions proposed, we refer to Options 2 and 3 as the "Comprehensive Options." III. PLEADINGS AND DISCUSSION 4. Most commenting parties urge this Commission not to adopt any rule requiring metric conversion of tariff materials. AT&T maintains that the Metric Conversion Act does not obligate this Commission to require metric conversion but rather contemplates carriers' voluntary conversion to the metric system. Because the tariffs proposed for metric conversion are primarily for domestic services, SWB contends that the absence of such conversion has little or no impact on international trade activities. Thus, SWB, like AT&T, argues that any conversion to the metric system should be voluntary. 5. A number of carriers assert that the anticipated costs of metric conversion and the related administrative burdens of revising tariff materials far outweigh any benefits to those who use these materials. Many parties particularly object to the proposed imposition of either of the Comprehensive Options. Some of these carriers argue that converting to the metric system all units of measure in tariff publications and all supporting materials would be extremely cumbersome, confusing, and time-consuming. For example, Ameritech estimates that any such comprehensive conversion would cost between $25 and $50 million. AT&T estimates that its costs to revise tariff publications and related billing and collection systems could be several million dollars. 6. On the other hand, NIST recommends that tariff materials include either (a) the metric unit and corresponding rate followed in parenthesis by the non-metric unit and rate, or (b) the non-metric unit and corresponding rate followed by the metric unit and rate. Thus, NIST would allow carriers to choose which measurement system would be dominant in their tariff materials and which would be included in parenthesis. Should the Commission not adopt that approach, NIST urges that, at a minimum, carriers should be required to comply with Option 2 because this option most closely meets the goals of the Metric Conversion Act. According to NIST, the other two options do not require carriers to use the metric system but merely require them to reference that system in their tariff materials. In addition, the Standards Subcommittee urges us to include the option of using only metric units in tariff materials and contends that use of any other option would require carriers to continue to use two sets of units. 7. On the record before us, we find that the carrier burdens associated with each of the Comprehensive Options -- Option 2 and 3 -- clearly outweigh the benefits to the public each offers. According to our estimates, Options 2 and 3 would impose total carrier burdens of approximately 325,890 and 332,280 hours, respectively. While far less than the cost estimates provided by some of the commenting carriers, our estimates of each carrier's average burden are nevertheless significant. Congress has not mandated comprehensive metric conversion of tariff materials and such conversion does not otherwise appear appropriate or necessary at this time. We do not believe the public benefits associated with either of the Comprehensive Options justify imposing the related burdens on carriers. 8. Although the Conversion Table Option -- Option 1 -- is less burdensome than either of the other options, it, too, would impose additional burdens on carriers. If carriers were required to include metric conversion tables in their tariff materials, we estimate such compliance would impose a burden of approximately nine hours per carrier for a total burden on all filing carriers of about 19,170 hours. While we recognize that inclusion of such conversion tables in carrier tariffs would promote our metric conversion program and potentially benefit some tariff users, we nevertheless find that the benefits associated with this requirement are outweighed by the estimated burdens that would be imposed on carriers. 9. In addition, we share SWB's view regarding the limited benefit to foreign commerce of requiring conversion of units of measure in common carrier tariffs. With few exceptions, those carriers filing tariffs with the Commission provide domestic services. Even when a call is made from a foreign country that employs the metric system, the amount paid for that call by the foreign caller is not usually based upon distances and related rates appearing in any common carrier tariffs filed with this Commission. Rather, the payment amounts are generally derived from foreign carrier tariffs or similar publications. In fact, the Commission's earlier Metric Conversion Order deferred metric conversion of tariff publications in part because it was assumed that such conversion "would have no impact on international trade activities." IV. CONCLUSIONS 10. Although the metric system has been designated the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce, Congress has not mandated its use in such activities. Accordingly, we must decide on a case-by-case basis whether the public benefits of metric conversion outweigh the burdens imposed. 11. In the Part 61 Metric NPRM, the Commission recognized that any conversion to the metric system would impose certain burdens on carriers and their customers. The Commission, however, expressed the tentative belief that tariff materials should be subject to metric conversion, that such conversion would be consistent with national policy, and that the related burdens on carriers could be minimized. 12. Now, in light of the record established in response to the Part 61 Metric NPRM, we no longer find that the benefits of having metric units or metric conversion tables in tariff materials exceed the related burdens on those carriers that must file and update such materials. As indicated above, each of the proposed options imposes certain rather definite and significant burdens. We, therefore, find that the benefits to carriers and their customers of converting tariff materials to the metric system -- or of including conversion tables in such materials -- are not sufficiently clear at this time to justify the carrier burdens involved. 13. For these reasons and others explained above, we conclude that action by the Commission to require common carriers subject to our jurisdiction to convert their tariff materials to the metric system is neither compelled by law nor consistent with the public interest. Accordingly, we decline to adopt any of the options proposed in the Part 61 Metric NPRM and we now terminate this proceeding. V. ORDERING CLAUSE 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the proceeding initiated in CC Docket No. 93-55 IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary