Data Practices, Computer III Further Remand: BOC Provision of Enhanced Services FRN, NPRM, CC Doc. No. 95-20, 98-10, WC 10-132, FCC 13-69

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013–15683 Filed 6–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 51, 53, and 64
[CC Docket Nos. 95–20, 98–10; FCC 13–
69]

Data Practices, Computer III Further
Remand: BOC Provision of Enhanced
Services
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Further notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:

In this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice),
the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) seeks
comment on how to streamline or
eliminate legacy regulations contained
in the Computer Inquiry proceedings
and that are applicable to the Bell
Operating Companies (BOCs). The
FNPRM: Seeks data on the changing
market for narrowband enhanced
services, in particular, the extent to
which enhanced service providers
(ESPs) continue to need access to the
BOCs’ basic network transmission
services offered through comparably
efficient interconnection (CEI) and open
network architecture (ONA) services;
proposes eliminating CEI requirements
and seeks comment on whether to retain
only limited ONA inputs that ESPs
require in areas where there are no
competitive alternatives; and seeks
comment on the need for the continuing
application of the All-Carrier Rule that
requires non-BOC incumbent local
exchange carriers (LECs) to offer nondiscriminatory access to basic network
services for unaffiliated ESPs.
DATES: Comments are due July 31, 2013,
and reply comments are due August 30,
2013. Written comments on the
paperwork Reduction Act proposed or
modified information collection
requirements must be submitted by the
public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested
parties on or before [date].
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may
submit comments, identified by CC
Docket No. 00–175, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:48 Jun 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: http://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: [email protected]
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jodie May, WCB, CPD, (202) 418–1580
or [email protected]. For additional
information concerning the Paperwork
Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained in this
document, send an email to
[email protected] or contact Judith Boley
Herman at 202–418–0214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
Notice in CC Docket Nos. 95–20, 98–10;
FCC 13–69, released on May 17, 2013.
The full text of this document, which is
part of the Commission’s Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, is available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20554, and may
also be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, BCPI,
Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. via
their Web site, http://www.bcpi.com, or
call 1–800–378–3160. This document is
available in alternative formats
(computer diskette, large print, audio
record, and Braille). Persons with
disabilities who need documents in
these formats may contact the FCC by
email: [email protected] or phone: 202–
418–0530 or TTY: 202–418–0432.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. All pleadings are
to reference CC Docket Nos. 95–20, 98–
10; FCC 13–69. Comments may be filed
using the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

39233

accessing the ECFS: http://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
• Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
• People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to [email protected] or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Synopsis of Further Notice
I. Background
1. In its Computer II proceedings, the
Commission required AT&T (and
subsequently the BOCs) to offer
enhanced services through structurally
separate subsidiaries. Amendment of
§ 64.702 of the Commission’s rules and
regulations (Computer II Final
Decision), 77 FCC 2d 384 (1980), recon.,
84 FCC 2d 50 (1980), further recon., 88
FCC 2d 512 (1981), affirmed sub nom.
Computer and Communications
Industry Ass’n v. FCC, 693 F.2d 198 (DC
Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 938
(1983). In the subsequent Computer III
proceedings, the Commission
determined that the benefits of
structural separation were outweighed
by the costs and that non-structural
safeguards could protect competing

E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM

01JYP1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

39234

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules

ESPs from improper cost allocation and
discrimination by the BOCs while
avoiding the inefficiencies of structural
separation. The Commission adopted
CEI and ONA as non-structural
safeguards that require the BOCs to offer
nondiscriminatory interconnection to
basic transmission services that
competitors purchase to provide
enhanced services, primarily to end
users that use narrowband telephone
technology. Amendment of § 64.702 of
the Commission’s rules and regulations,
CC Docket No. 85–229, Phase I, 104 FCC
2d 958 (1986) (subsequent history
omitted). The Commission has
identified examples of narrowband
enhanced services as voice mail, store
and forward services, fax, data
processing, alarm monitoring, and dialup gateways to on-line databases. BOCs
must comply with CEI and ONA
requirements in order to offer enhanced
services on an ‘‘integrated’’ basis instead
of through a structurally separate
affiliate as required by § 64.702 of the
Commission’s rules.
2. The BOCs’ CEI plans detail how
they provide unaffiliated ESPs with
interconnection to basic transmission
services on the same terms and
conditions that the BOCs use for their
own enhanced services offerings. The
BOCs’ ONA plans, based on the
architecture of the BOCs’ networks as
they existed in the late 1980s, offer ESPs
unbundled, tariffed access to basic
transmission services regardless of
whether the BOCs’ affiliated enhanced
services offerings use the same
components.
3. The Commission has had in place
a long-standing examination of the
substantive Computer III structure and
what safeguards are appropriate to
ensure the continued competitiveness of
the enhanced services market. In 1998,
the Commission sought comment on
what safeguards for BOC provision of
enhanced services made sense in light
of technological, market, and legal
conditions, particularly the passage of
the market opening provisions in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996
Act), such as the section 251
unbundling requirements, 47 U.S.C.
251. 63 FR 9749–01 (Feb. 26, 1998); 66
FR 15064–01 (Mar. 15, 2001).
4. Since 1998, the Commission has
modified or eliminated many of the
Computer III non-structural separation
requirements. In 1999, it streamlined
the CEI requirements. 64 FR 14141–01
(Mar. 24, 1999). In 2005, the
Commission granted the BOCs
significant relief from Computer III
requirements for wireline broadband
Internet access services. Appropriate
Framework for Broadband Access to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:48 Jun 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

Internet over Wireline Facilities, CC
Docket No. 02–33, Report and Order and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC
Rcd 14853, 14875–76, para. 41 (2005)
(WBIAS Order), aff’d, Time Warner
Telecom v. FCC, 507 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir.
2007). The Commission has also granted
forbearance from application of
Computer Inquiry rules to the extent
that the carriers offer other broadband
services. See, e.g., Petitions of the
Verizon Telephone Companies for
Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
160(c) in the Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence,
and Virginia Beach Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, WC Docket No. 06–
172, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
22 FCC Rcd 21293, 21318, para. 45
(2007). In light of these changes, the
Computer III requirements currently
apply only to the provision of enhanced
services using narrowband telephone
technology.
II. Discussion
5. In order to determine how we may
streamline or eliminate the remaining
legacy Computer III obligations, we seek
comment on the continued viability of
the substantive CEI and ONA
narrowband requirements. Recognizing
that the enhanced services provider
industry may continue to use the BOCs’
narrowband networks to serve
customers, we seek comment on how
we might simplify and modernize
efficient access to service elements that
competitors still need while at the same
time eliminating services that are no
longer necessary. Below, we propose to
eliminate CEI requirements and seek
comment on a specific streamlined
process we might adopt to review BOC
requests to eliminate or modify their
ONA offerings. We expect that this
Further Notice will provide data that
may allow us to grant some relief from
these legacy regulations in an efficient
and comprehensive manner.
6. The Commission made clear when
it adopted the Computer III
requirements that a ‘‘major goal of ONA
is to increase opportunities for ESPs to
use the BOCs’ regulated networks in
highly efficient ways, enabling ESPs to
expand their markets for their present
services and develop new offerings as
well, all to the benefit of consumers.’’
Computer III Remand Proceeding, CC
Docket No. 90–368, 5 FCC Rcd 7719,
7720, paras. 7, 11(1990). The
Commission intended the ONA
framework to evolve. It did not
prescribe a specific network design for
ONA services and stated that the BOCs,
with input from the enhanced services
industry, should implement ONA in a
way that matched the capabilities of

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

their networks, ‘‘both current and
future, with needs of the ESPs.’’ Filing
and Review of Open Network
Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88–
2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 4 FCC Rcd 1, 11, para. 3 (1988).
The Commission intended originally
that CEI plans would be an interim
measure until the BOCs fully
implemented ONA. Referring to CEI as
a ‘‘first phase,’’ the Commission
intended CEI to provide ESPs with
interconnection to the BOCs’ networks
that was substantially equivalent to the
interconnection the BOCs provided for
their own enhanced services until the
BOCs fully unbundled their networks to
ESPs through ONA. Although the
Commission eliminated formal approval
of CEI plans, we have continued to
require the BOCs to maintain their CEI
plans and post them on the Internet.
7. We propose to eliminate the
requirement that BOCs maintain and
post their CEI plans on the Internet. CEI
plans were always intended to be an
interim measure, designed to bridge the
gap between the Commission’s decision
to lift structural separation in Computer
III and the implementation of ONA. In
light of the changing market for
narrowband enhanced services, we
expect that CEI plans are not necessary
to protect against access discrimination.
We seek comment on this proposal.
ONA has provided ESPs a greater level
of protection against access
discrimination than CEI. Under ONA,
not only must the BOCs offer network
services to competing ESPs in
compliance with the nine CEI ‘‘equal
access’’ parameters, but they must also
unbundle and tariff key network service
elements beyond those they use to
provide their own enhanced services
offerings. To the extent that we find it
necessary to retain any limited ONA
requirements, we expect that ESPs will
have adequate access to the BOCs’
legacy network through those
arrangements.
8. We seek current information on
whether ONA offerings continue to be
an effective means of providing
competitive ESPs with access to
unbundled network services they need
to structure efficient service offerings.
To the extent that the requirements or
offerings are ineffective, we request that
commenters cite to specific instances to
support their claims. The Commission is
now examining the technological
transition of legacy networks and
protocols toward modern networks and
services in several contexts. See, e.g.,
Pleading Cycle Established for AT&T
and NTCA Petition, GN Docket No. 12–
353, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 15766
(rel. Dec. 14, 2012) (seeking comment on

E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM

01JYP1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
AT&T and National
Telecommunications Cooperative
Association petitions to open
proceedings on the transition from TDM
to IP networks); FCC Chairman Julius
Genachowski Announces Formation of
‘‘Technology Transitions Policy Task
Force,’’ News Release (Dec. 10, 2012);
Technology Transitions Policy Task
Force Seeks Comment on Potential
Trials, GN Docket No. 13–5, Public
Notice, DA 13–1016 (rel. May 10, 2013),
available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-131016A1.pdf. ONA requirements are
legacy regulations aimed at giving
competitors wholesale access to
narrowband technologies for the
provision of enhanced services, and we
are therefore interested in whether
competitors are using narrowband ONA
offerings to offer new services or
whether they are transitioning away
from narrowband products. We seek
comment on that question. We also ask
the BOCs to provide information on
specific narrowband ONA offerings that
they currently provision for unaffiliated
ESPs. In particular, we seek information
about specific service inputs that ESPs
may still require from the BOCs to serve
narrowband customers and on whether
we should eliminate all other services.
9. We seek comment on the extent to
which the BOCs themselves continue to
provide narrowband enhanced services
and whether there are sufficient
alternatives such that the BOCs are
prevented, at least in some areas, from
engaging in harmful discrimination
against unaffiliated ESPs. We seek data
on the alternatives available and the
specific markets in which such
alternatives are available. Do ESPs still
rely primarily on narrowband ONA
services, or do they use other means to
obtain services? We are interested in
whether enhanced service competitors
use a combination of inputs from
different providers.
10. The Commission originally
required the BOCs to maintain a
sufficient level of uniformity among
their ONA services, in part so that ESPs
could market national offerings. Is this
requirement still necessary today for
narrowband offerings or do ESPs seek
more tailored arrangements based on
their customer base? Commenters
should identify what other network
platforms, such as cable or broadband,
offer viable options for re-structuring
existing enhanced services that
customers still use and whether ESPs
would have access to those options in
the areas in which their customers are
located, including in rural areas. If
alternatives are available, do they enable
functionalities that ESPs require for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:48 Jun 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

specific narrowband products, such as
alarm monitoring services or voice mail?
Commenters should explain whether
ESPs use ONA offerings for any public
safety related offerings. In addition, we
seek comment on whether ESPs obtain
from the BOCs unbundled network
elements under section 251 of the Act,
47 U.S.C. 251, if the providers are also
telecommunications carriers or if they
can obtain basic services from
competitive telecommunications
providers.
11. The ONA framework consists of
multiple requirements in addition to the
tariffing of basic service offerings. These
include the ONA amendment process
under which a BOC that seeks to offer
an enhanced service that uses a new
basic service element, or otherwise uses
different configurations of underlying
basic services than those in its approved
ONA plan, must amend its ONA plan at
least 90 days before it offers the new
enhanced service. In addition, an ESP
can request a new ONA basic service
from the BOC and must receive a
response from the BOC within 120 days
regarding whether the BOC will provide
the service. The BOC must evaluate and
justify its response using specific
factors, including market area demand,
utility to ESPs as perceived by the
providers themselves, and cost and
technical feasibility. We are interested
in obtaining information about how
often the BOCs received a request under
the 120 day process, including the date
of the most recent request, and the
outcome of the request. The BOCs
should also address the last time they
amended their ONA plans. ESPs should
address whether the 120 day process
continues to be of value and whether
they contemplate using it in the future.
We seek comment on the extent to
which the narrowband ONA obligations
may increase the BOCs’ costs of
providing enhanced services.
Commenters should identify costs with
specificity wherever possible. We also
ask commenters to address whether
there are continuing benefits associated
with the obligations that justify the
costs.
12. At the beginning of the ONA
implementation process, the
Commission found that it would not be
reasonable for BOCs to withdraw any
services listed in their approved ONA
plans and that it would not look
favorably on requests for withdrawal. It
did, however, outline a process for
BOCs to withdraw ONA services. It
stated that, once an ONA service
element was federally tariffed, the BOC
must request and receive advance
approval in writing before filing tariff
revisions to discontinue offering of that

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

39235

service. Filing and Review of Open
Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket
No. 88–2, Phase I, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 7646,
7652–53, para. 10 (1991). The
Commission, acting through the
Wireline Competition Bureau, has
granted such approvals in a few limited
circumstances, each involving an
extended proceeding. In those
proceedings, the Bureau evaluated the
reasonableness of the withdrawal
request to see if circumstances justified
the elimination of specific ONA
services. It reviewed criteria including
whether the BOC had existing
customers for the service and whether
suitable alternative services existed. It
also accepted BOC proposals that
existing customers should have an
opportunity to continue to purchase the
withdrawn ONA service element on a
grandfathered basis. See BellSouth Open
Network Architecture Plan Amendment,
CC Docket No. 88–2, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15844,
15847–48, para. 5 (Wireline Comp. Bur.
2003); Qwest Petition for Permission to
Withdraw ONA Services, WC Docket
No. 02–355, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 7164, 7167, para. 6
(Wireline Comp. Bur. 2004). We seek
comment on what type of simplified
process might now be feasible for BOCs
to use to withdraw ONA service
elements that they assert are no longer
useful or for which there are alternative
offerings. Should we use the same
criteria the Bureau relied upon in
reviewing past requests? We seek
comment on how precisely a BOC
should define the service area in which
it requests to eliminate services. By
requiring BOCs to demonstrate with
specificity which ONA services they
seek to retire and what alternatives are
available, we can move toward an
orderly and efficient process for
eliminating services that may no longer
be necessary.
13. We seek comment on what type of
process would be most efficient for us
to review requests to reduce or
eliminate ONA service offerings that are
included in the BOCs’ ONA plans and
tariffs. Because the elimination of basic
narrowband service elements currently
available under the ONA plans could
impact ESPs that have limited
alternatives for these services, we seek
comment on adopting a discontinuance
process that allows for comments, a
notice period, and affirmative action by
the Commission. This would allow
more time for ESPs to transition to other
arrangements whether from the BOCs,
themselves, or alternative providers. We
seek comment on adopting a process

E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM

01JYP1

39236

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules

that is similar to the standard
streamlined process for service
discontinuance applications under
section 214 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 214.
Under the section 214 process, a
dominant carrier such as a BOC that
seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair
service must notify affected customers
and file an application with the
Commission. The application is
automatically granted on the 60th day
after its filing unless the Commission
has notified the applicant that the grant
will not automatically be effective. 47
CFR 63.71. Specifically, we seek
comment on the following proposal:
A BOC that seeks to withdraw and
discontinue narrowband Open Network
Architecture (ONA)-related services
shall be subject to the following
procedures:
The BOC shall notify all affected
customers of the planned withdrawal
and discontinuance in writing. The
notification shall include the name and
address of the carrier, date of planned
service withdrawal and discontinuance,
points of geographic areas of service
affected, and a brief description of the
type of service affected. The notification
shall also include a statement to
customers as follows:

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

The FCC will normally authorize this
proposed withdrawal and discontinuance of
service unless it is shown that customers
would be unable to receive service or a
reasonable substitute from another carrier or
that the public convenience and necessity is
otherwise adversely affected. If you wish to
object, file your comments as soon as
possible, but no later than 30 days after the
Commission releases public notice of the
proposed withdrawal or discontinuance.
Comments should include specific
information about the impact of this
proposed withdrawal and discontinuance on
you or your company, including any inability
to acquire reasonable substitute service.
Comments must be filed electronically using
the Internet through the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)
and reference the proceeding number on the
public notice. ECFS is accessible at http://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

The BOC shall file with this
Commission, on or after the date on
which it has given notice to all affected
customers, an application which shall
contain the name and address of the
carrier, date of planned service
withdrawal and discontinuance, points
of geographic areas of service affected,
brief description of the type of service
affected, brief description of the dates
and methods of notice to all affected
customers, or a statement that no
customers are currently using the
service, and any other supplemental
information the Commission may
require.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:48 Jun 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

The application to withdraw and
discontinue ONA services shall be
automatically granted on the 60th day
after its filing with the Commission
without any notification to the applicant
unless the Commission has notified the
applicant that the grant will not be
automatically effective. For purposes of
this section, an application will be
deemed filed on the date the
Commission releases public notice of
the filing.
14. Such a process would set a
threshold showing for a BOC to
withdraw an ONA service and allow
ESPs an orderly notice and comment
process to object to the withdrawal. We
seek comment on whether we should
permit BOCs to include multiple
services in a single notice for a
particular geographic area. The process
would also allow affected ESPs the
opportunity to address whether they
would be unable to serve customers
without access to the service.
15. Because we propose to eliminate
CEI and seek comment on streamlining
or eliminating ONA requirements, it is
important for ESPs to have sufficient
detail to understand the impact of any
possible reduction in availability. BOCs
should comment on what types of
transition arrangements might be
possible to ensure that ESPs can still
serve their narrowband customers. We
seek comment on whether BOCs would
continue to make CEI and ONA service
offerings and network functionalities
available through alternative means,
including through the use of other
tariffed services. Would they be
available through a transition to
unbundled network elements or resold
services? We seek information from the
BOCs on whether grandfathering
arrangements would be available based
on existing prices, terms, and
conditions. Should we require BOCs to
grandfather existing customers for a
period of time (e.g., three years), and if
so, what would be an appropriate time
limit?
16. Non-BOC facilities-based common
carriers must provide the basic
transmission services underlying their
enhanced services on a
nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to
tariffs under the All-Carrier Rule.
Computer II Final Decision, 77 FCC 2d
at 474–75, para. 231. The rule requires
common carriers to provide basic
transmission services at the same prices,
terms, and conditions to all ESPs,
including themselves. We seek
comment on the extent to which ESPs
continue to rely on these tariffed
transmission services to provide
narrowband services to customers and
whether there are alternative providers

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

available. In particular, we seek
comment on whether we should retain
network access requirements under the
All-Carrier Rule beyond the time that
CEI and ONA may sunset. Would ESPs,
including those offering certain services
such as alarm monitoring, continue to
require access to incumbent LEC
networks in non-BOC territory because
there are more limited alternatives in
those areas, or do cable, wireless, and
VoIP platforms offer ESPs viable
alternatives? We also seek comment on
whether the incumbent carriers
themselves continue to provide
narrowband enhanced services such
that is important to retain the AllCarrier Rule to prevent discriminatory
conduct against unaffiliated ESPs.
Paperwork Reduction Act
17. This Further Notice seeks
comment on a potential new or revised
information collection requirements. If
the Commission adopts any new or
revised information collection
requirement, the Commission will
publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register inviting the public to comment
on the requirement, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might
‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
18. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
be prepared for notice-and-comment
rulemaking proceedings, unless the
agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not,
if promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C.
601(6). The RFA generally defines the
term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ 5 U.S.C.
601(6). In addition, the term ‘‘small
business’’ has the same meaning as the
term ‘‘small business concern’’ under
the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
SBA defines small telecommunications
entities as those with 1,500 or fewer

E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM

01JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

employees. 15 U.S.C. 632. This
proceeding pertains to the BOCs, which,
because they would not be deemed a
‘‘small business concern’’ under the
Small Business Act and have more than
1,500 employees, do not qualify as small
entities under the RFA. Therefore, we
certify that the proposals in this Further
Notice, if adopted, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
19. The Commission will send a copy
of the Notice, including a copy of this
Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. This initial
certification will also be published in
the Federal Register.
Ex Parte Presentations
20. This proceeding shall be treated as
a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:48 Jun 28, 2013

Jkt 229001

themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Ordering Clauses
21. It is ordered that, pursuant to §§ 1,
2, 4, 11, 201–205, 251, 272, 274–276,
and 303(r) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154, 161, 201–205, 251, 272, 274–276,
and 303(r) this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket Nos.
95–20 and 98–10 is adopted.
22. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in CC Docket Nos. 95–20
and 98–10, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–15643 Filed 6–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0042;
4500030114]
RIN 1018–AX13

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Jaguar
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule;
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:

We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on the August 20, 2012, proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
jaguar (Panthera onca) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), and we announce
revisions to our proposed designation of
critical habitat for the jaguar. We also
announce the availability of a draft
economic analysis and draft
environmental assessment of the revised
proposed designation of critical habitat
for jaguar and an amended required
determinations section of the proposal.
We are reopening the comment period
to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously
on the revised proposed rule, the
associated draft economic analysis and

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

39237

draft environmental assessment, and the
amended required determinations
section. Comments previously
submitted need not be resubmitted, as
they will be fully considered in
preparation of the final rule. In addition,
we announce a public informational
session and public hearing on the
revised proposed designation of critical
habitat for the jaguar.
DATES: Written comments: The comment
period for the proposed rule published
August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214), is
reopened. We will consider comments
received or postmarked on or before
August 9, 2013. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES)
must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the closing date.
Public informational session and
public hearing: We will hold a public
informational session and public
hearing on this proposed rule on July
30, 2013, at Buena High School
Performing Arts Center, 5225 Buena
School Blvd., Sierra Vista, Arizona
85615. There will be an informational
meeting from 3:30–5:00 p.m., and the
public hearing will occur from 6:30–
8:30 p.m. at the same location.
ADDRESSES:
Document availability: You may
obtain copies of the proposed rule, draft
economic analysis, and draft
environmental assessment on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0042 or
by mail from the Arizona Ecological
Services Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Written comments: You may submit
written comments by one of the
following methods, or at the public
hearing:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
by searching for Docket No. FWS–R2–
ES–2012–0042, which is the docket
number for this rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit comments
by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–
ES–2012–0042; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on http://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
Public informational session and
public hearing: The public

E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM

01JYP1