2000 Biennial Regulatory Review, Separate Affliate Requirements of the Commission's Rules FRN, NPRM, CC Doc No. 00-175, FCC 13-69

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ This
proposed rule will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Hog, kidney (of which no more
than
0.05
ppm
is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) ..........
Hog, liver (of which no more than
0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se) .......................................
Hog, meat (of which no more than
2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se) .......................................
Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver .............................
Milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk and of which
no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) ..........
Poultry, fat (of which no more
than
7.0
ppm
is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) ..........
Poultry, liver (of which no more
than
0.05
ppm
is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) ..........
Poultry, meat (of which no more
than
3.0
ppm
is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) ..........
Poultry, meat byproducts, except
liver ............................................

*

*

*

*

1.0
0.5
2.0
1.0

0.05
7.0
2.0
3.0
2.0

*

Dated: June 5, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 2013–13818 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am]

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION

PART 180—[AMENDED]

47 CFR Part 64

1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:

[CC Docket No. 00–175, FCC 13–69]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

■

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

2. In § 180.252, revise the table in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

■

(a) * * *
Parts per
million

Commodity
Cattle, fat (of which no more than
0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se) .......................................
Cattle, kidney (of which no more
than
0.05
ppm
is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) ..........
Cattle, liver (of which no more
than
0.05
ppm
is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) ..........
Cattle, meat (of which no more
than
2.0
ppm
is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) ..........
Cattle, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver .........................
Egg (of which no more than 0.05
ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per
se) .............................................
Hog, fat (of which no more than
0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se) .......................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:54 Jun 11, 2013

Jkt 229001

2000 Biennial Regulatory Review,
Separate Affiliate Requirements of the
Commission’s Rules
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

§ 180.252 Tetrachlorvinphos; tolerances
for residues.

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Parts per
million

Commodity

0.2
1.0
0.5
2.0

SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on the
structural separation requirements of
the Commission’s rules, as they apply to
rate-of-return carriers providing
facilities-based in-region, interexchange,
interstate long distance services.
Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on the costs and benefits of
continuing to apply requirements to
rate-of-return carriers, and whether such
carriers continue to have the ability and
incentive to engage in anticompetitive
behavior.

Comments are due on or before
July 12, 2013 and reply comments are
due on or before August 12, 2013.
0.2 ADDRESSES: Interested parties may
submit comments, identified by CC
Docket No. 00–175, by any of the
0.2 following methods:
DATES:

1.0

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

35191

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• 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:
Gregory Kwan, Attorney Advisor, at
202–418–1191, Competition Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 00–175,
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
Twelfth 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 sections 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 No. 00–175.
Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: http://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM

12JNP1

35192

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules

• 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 St., SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• 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).

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Synopsis of Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
1. In furtherance of our commitment
to revisit rules that may be outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively
burdensome, while continuing to
promote competition and consumer
protection consistent with the Act, we
evaluate in this Second FNPRM the
structural separation requirements of
section 64.1903 of the Commission’s
rules, as they apply to rate-of-return
carriers providing facilities-based inregion, interexchange, interstate long
distance services (in-region long
distance services). Through this
proceeding, we intend to modernize our
rules to reflect the competitive and
marketplace realities for long distance
service—at one time an expensive
service, today one frequently offered on
an unlimited basis by numerous
facilities-based providers.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:54 Jun 11, 2013

Jkt 229001

2. Section 64.1903, as written,
requires independent ILECs providing
long distance services using their own
facilities to do so through a separate
corporate subsidiary that does not
jointly own transmission or switching
equipment with the local exchange
company. The Commission promulgated
section 64.1903 against a regulatory
backdrop in which local telephone
service, interstate long distance, and
intrastate long distance were distinct
services, for which consumers often
chose separate providers. Since the
codification of section 64.1903 more
than fifteen years ago, we have seen
transformative marketplace and
regulatory changes, calling into question
whether the current rule is the least
burdensome way to ensure that our
goals of competition and consumer
protection are met. The Commission has
acknowledged these changes, and in
2007 granted relief to the Bell Operating
Companies (BOCs) from a regulatory
framework with similar structural
separation requirements as section
64.1903.
3. Today, the Commission adopts the
USTelecom Forbearance Order, which,
among other things, grants the request of
the United States Telecom Association
(USTelecom) for forbearance from
section 64.1903 as it applies to price cap
carriers that comply with certain
conditions. Based on the record in that
proceeding, however, the USTelecom
Forbearance Order denies similar relief
to independent ILECs subject to rate-ofreturn regulation ‘‘due to the continuing
potential for cost misallocation.’’ In this
Second FNPRM, we take the next steps
toward modernizing our rules for the
non-BOC ILECs. Considering
developments in today’s marketplace,
we seek comment on the costs and
benefits of continuing to apply section
64.1903 to rate-of-return carriers, and
whether such carriers continue to have
the ability and incentive to engage in
anticompetitive behavior.
4. The Commission adopted section
64.1903 based on the findings in the
LEC Classification Order emphasizing
the need to protect against the exercise
of exclusionary market power by
independent ILECs—the ability to raise
rivals’ costs of providing competitive
services, including the misallocation of
costs (for example misallocating costs
from nonregulated to regulated
services), non-price discrimination (for
example, lower quality wholesale
services provided to a competitor), and
a price squeeze based on inputs that
long distance competitors need, such as
access services (for example, raising
prices for access services, including
both switched and special access, or

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

reducing prices for retail services). In
light of the market changes described
above, we consider whether the rule
continues to offer benefits and whether
the benefits justify the regulatory
burdens and costs of compliance for
rate-of-return ILECs. We also recognize
that market conditions alone might
justify eliminating the separate affiliate
requirement, at least for some
independent ILECs subject to rate-ofreturn regulation, and seek comment on
the relevant market characteristics and
how they should affect our evaluation of
the continued need for the separate
affiliate rule.
5. Analyzing Potential for Cost
Miscalculation. The USTelecom
Forbearance Order granted forbearance
from section 64.1903 to independent
ILECs subject to price cap regulation but
denied this relief to such carriers subject
to rate-of-return regulation, including
both independent ILECs subject to
average schedules and cost companies.
Rate-of-return regulation, which
preceded price cap regulation, focuses
on an ILEC’s costs and fixes the profits
an ILEC may earn based on those costs.
A rate-of-return ILEC may recover only
its costs plus a prescribed return on
investment. Unlike price cap carriers,
rate-of-return carriers are typically
small, rural telephone companies
concentrated in one area. Also unlike
price cap carriers, non-average schedule
rate-of-return independent ILEC has the
ability and incentive to over allocate
costs to common line and special access
services because its interstate
compensation for those services remains
based directly on company-specific
costs. We seek comment on this view.
The Commission’s 2011 reforms to
intercarrier compensation rules cap
and/or reduce interstate switched access
charges, but allow increases in common
line and special access rates. Thus, we
believe that these changes in the access
charge rules reduce, but may not
eliminate, incentives for cost
misallocation and potential access
charge rate increases. We seek comment
on this view and on the interplay
between section 64.1903 and our
intercarrier compensation and universal
service reforms. We seek comment on
whether we could address concerns
about cost misallocation equally well,
and in a less burdensome manner, in
ways other than requiring that service
be provided through a separate affiliate.
6. The Commission has previously
recognized that concerns about cost
misallocation are strongest when
carriers provide long distance services
in whole or in part through their own
switching or transmission facilities.
When these carriers provide long

E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM

12JNP1

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
distance service exclusively through
resale, the risk of cost misallocation is
reduced, and they operate pursuant to a
lesser safeguard—a separate corporate
division rather than a separate
subsidiary. We seek comment on the
extent to which rate-of-return
independent ILECs provide long
distance service using their own
facilities. Could we deter and detect cost
misallocation by requiring that
independent ILECs offering long
distance over their own facilities
provide those services through a
separate corporate division?
7. We also seek comment on whether
we can reduce the burdens on average
schedule carriers. Average schedule
carriers are a subset of rate-of-return
carriers that receive access
compensation and universal service
support through the use of ‘‘average
schedules’’ to avoid the difficulties and
expenses involved with conducting
company-specific cost studies. Average
schedule companies appear to have
limited incentives to misallocate costs
as long as they continue to use the
average schedules for access
compensation. However, these
companies are permitted to convert to
cost-based regulation without
Commission approval. Thus, an average
schedule company could, in theory,
provide in-region long distance service
without a separate affiliate, and then
convert to cost-based regulation. We
seek comment on how we could grant
relief from the separate affiliate
requirement for average schedule
companies and also prevent them from
misallocating costs in the future. We
could condition relief from section
64.1903 on a commitment not to convert
to rate-of-return regulation, or require
them to reinstitute a separate affiliate if
they do so. We seek comment on these
and alternative suggestions. How should
the Commission treat cost companies
participating in NECA pools? Do these
companies possess the ability and
incentive to misallocate costs because
disbursements from the NECA pools are
based on participating companies’
costs? In the USTelecom Forbearance
Order, we grant relief to price cap
carriers if they: (1) submit and obtain
Bureau approval of special access
performance metrics, and (2) satisfy
imputation requirements, including the
submission of an imputation plan for
review and approval from the Bureau.
Will such nonstructural safeguards
obviate the need for section 64.1903,
while imposing fewer costs and
burdens, for rate-of-return carriers? How
should our analysis for rate-of-return

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:54 Jun 11, 2013

Jkt 229001

carriers differ, if any, from our analysis
for price cap carriers?
8. Analyzing Potential for Unlawful
Non-Price Discrimination and Price
Squeezes. Section 64.1903 was intended
to prevent unlawful non-price
discrimination and price squeezes. Do
these concerns remain relevant in light
of changes in the market, including the
prevalence of bundled local, intrastate
long distance, and interstate long
distance services? Is the separate
affiliate requirement an effective, costeffective way to prevent these
anticompetitive practices? Could the
Commission effectively address these
concerns through ex-post facto
investigations, such as under a section
208 complaint process? Are existing
statutory and regulatory safeguards
sufficient to deter these anticompetitive
practices?
9. Costs and Benefits of the Separate
Affiliate Requirements of Section
64.1903. How many independent ILECs
use separate affiliates pursuant to
section 64.1903? What costs, if any,
would be saved if we eliminate section
64.1903 for independent ILECs subject
to rate-of-return regulation? Would the
same savings be realized if the
independent ILEC were required instead
to provide long distance services
through a separate division? For
example, what incremental costs does
an independent ILEC incur in
maintaining separate books of account
for its long distance services, as opposed
to including those costs and revenues in
the accounts for its LEC operations?
How does that differ depending on
whether the separate books of account
are for a separate division versus a
separate corporation? We particularly
seek empirical data on costs and
burdens from independent ILECs that
have experience providing long distance
service through a separate corporate
affiliate or a separate division so that we
can analyze the differences between
these structures.
10. What effect, if any, does the
prohibition against joint ownership of
switching and transmission equipment
have on an independent ILEC’s
operational efficiency and ability to
offer innovative services? Does that
prohibition significantly limit the
independent ILEC’s opportunities to
take advantage of economies of scope
and scale associated with integrated
operations? Does the prohibition make it
more difficult for an independent ILEC
to transform its network from a
traditional Time-Division Multiplexing
(TDM) network to an all-Internet
Protocol (all IP) network? If so, how?
Does section 64.1903 reduce
independent ILECs’ ability to increase

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

35193

telephone subscribership or extend
broadband services to additional areas?
If ILECs transition to offering only VoIP
services, should section 64.1903
continue to apply? Finally, we seek
comment on whether complying with
nonstructural safeguards such as special
access performance metrics and
imputation requirements adequately
address issues of non-price
discrimination and/or price squeezes.
We ask commenters to provide detailed
information on the overall costs and
burdens of the section 64.1903
requirements on independent ILECs and
their customers.
Paperwork Reduction Act
11. This NPRM seeks comment on a
potential new or revised information
collection requirement. 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
12. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this Supplemental Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental
IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies
proposed in this Second NPRM. Written
comments are requested on this
Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the
Supplemental IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the
Second FNPRM. The Commission will
send a copy of the Second FNPRM,
including this Supplemental IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the Second FNPRM and
Supplemental IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
13. Purpose of the Proposed Rules. In
the Second FNPRM, we explore the
costs and benefits of continuing to apply
the structural separation requirements
contained in section 64.1903 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 64.1903, to

E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM

12JNP1

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

35194

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules

independent incumbent local exchange
carriers (ILECs) subject to rate-of-return
regulation and providing in-region,
interexchange, interstate long distance
services (in-region long distance
services) in today’s marketplace.
14. In the Second FNPRM, we seek
comments addressing marketplace
changes such as the decline of standalone long distance services, the rise of
facilities-based ‘‘all-distance services’’
competition from cable and wireless,
and the role of bundles in today’s long
distance market. We therefore seek
comment addressing whether incentives
for anticompetitive behavior exist for
independent ILECs subject to rate-ofreturn regulation, and whether granting
relief from section 64.1903 is
appropriate.
15. Legal Basis. The legal basis for any
action that may be taken pursuant to the
Second FNPRM is contained in sections
4(i), 4(j), 10, 201 through 204, 214,
220(a), and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 160,
201 through 204, 214, 220(a), and 303(r).
16. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply. 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. The RFA generally defines the
term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,
the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same
meaning as the term ‘‘small-business
concern’’ under the Small Business Act.
A small-business concern’’ is one
which: (1) is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
17. Small Businesses. Nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 27.5
million small businesses, according to
the SBA.
18. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Census Bureau data for 2007, there were
3,188 firms in this category, total, that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 3144 firms had employment of 999
or fewer employees, and 44 firms had
employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered
small.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:54 Jun 11, 2013

Jkt 229001

19. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (ILECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a size standard for small businesses
specifically applicable to incumbent
local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 1,307 carriers
reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of these
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have
more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of
incumbent local exchange service are
small businesses that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the Second
FNPRM.
20. We have included small
incumbent LECs in this present RFA
analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small
business’’ under the RFA is one that,
inter alia, meets the pertinent small
business size standard (e.g., a telephone
communications business having 1,500
or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not
dominant in its field of operation.’’ The
SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that,
for RFA purposes, small incumbent
LECs are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance
is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. We have
therefore included small incumbent
LECs in this RFA analysis, although we
emphasize that this RFA action has no
effect on Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
21. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to
interexchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 359 companies
reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
the provision of interexchange services.
Of these 359 companies, an estimated
317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
42 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are
small entities that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the Order.
22. Description of Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small
Entities. In this Second FNPRM, the

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Commission proposes additional or
modified information collections that
would impose reporting and
recordkeeping on current independent
ILECs subject to rate-of-return
regulation, including small entities.
Specifically, the Second FNPRM invites
comment on whether the Commission
should replace its legacy framework for
the provision of in-region, interstate
long distance services provided by
independent ILECs subject to rate-ofreturn regulation with a framework
more closely tailored to the needs of
consumers and competitors in today’s
marketplace. The central feature of this
proposal is to amend or eliminate the
application of section 64.1903 to
independent ILECs subject to rate-ofreturn regulation.
23. Based on these questions, the
Commission anticipates that a record
will be developed concerning actual
burdens and alternative ways in which
the Commission could lessen the
burdens on small entities subject to
these requirements throughout the
nation.
24. Steps Taken to Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered. The RFA requires an
agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rules for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.’’
25. The overall objective of this
proceeding is to reduce regulatory
burdens on independent ILECs to the
extent consistent with the public
interest, and is part of the Commission’s
ongoing efforts under Executive Order
13,579 to revisit ‘‘rules that may be
outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or
excessively burdensome, and to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal them in
accordance with what has been
learned.’’ The Second FNPRM seeks
specific proposals as to which existing
regulations might be removed or
streamlined in their application to
provision of in-region, interstate and
international interexchange services by
independent ILECs subject to rate-ofreturn regulation absent current
safeguards, and asks parties to comment

E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM

12JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

on whether such independent ILECs
should continue to be classified as
nondominant in the provision of such
services if section 64.1903 is repealed.
The Second FNPRM also asks parties to
discuss whether, and to what extent,
dominant carrier regulation is aptly
suited to achieving the Commission’s
objectives to promote competition and
to deter anticompetitive behavior by
independent ILECs subject to rate-ofreturn regulation. The Second FNPRM
seeks comment on these matters,
especially as they might affect small
entities subject to the rules.
26. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed
Rules. None.
Ex Parte Presentations
27. 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 section
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
section 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

18:04 Jun 11, 2013

Jkt 229001

themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Ordering Clauses
28. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201
through 205, 220(a), 251, 272, and 303(r)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
154(j), 201 through 205, 220(a), 251,
272, and 303(r) this Second Further
Notice of Proposed of Rulemaking in CC
Docket No. 00–175 is adopted.
29. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 00–175,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Certifications, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.

35195

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lawrence Butler, (202) 287–1945 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Legal Authority
B. Summary of Major Provisions
1. Part 925—Foreign Acquisition
2. Part 952—Solicitation Provisions and
Contract Clauses
3. Part 970—DOE Management and
Operating Contracts
II. Summaries of Export Control Laws
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under Executive Order 12988
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
E. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 13211
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13609
L. Approval by the Office of the Secretary
of Energy

48 CFR Parts 925, 952, and 970

I. Executive Summary

RIN 1991–AB99

A. Purpose and Legal Authority

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–13976 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

Acquisition Regulations: Export
Control
Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE) is proposing to amend the
Department of Energy Acquisition
Regulation (DEAR) to add export control
requirements applicable to the
performance of DOE contracts.
DATES: Written comments on this
proposed rulemaking must be received
on or before close of business July 12,
2013
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by ‘‘DEAR: Export Control
and RIN 1991–AB99,’’ by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email to:
[email protected]. Include
DEAR: Export Control and RIN 1991–
AB99 in the subject line of the message.
• Mail to: U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Acquisition and Project
Management, MA–611, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. Comments by
email are encouraged.

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

The purpose of this rulemaking is to
add new DEAR subparts 925.71 and
970.2571 to set forth requirements
concerning compliance with export
control laws, regulations and directives
applicable to the performance of DOE
contracts.
Export control laws, regulations and
directives that may apply to a contract
in effect on the date of the contract
award and as amended subsequently
include, but are not limited to: the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2751 et seq.); the Export Administration
Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et
seq.), as continued under the
International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (Title II of Pub. L. 95–223,
91 Stat. 1626, October 28, 1977);
Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C.
App. 5(b) as amended by the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961); Assistance to
Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (10
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
810); Export Administration Regulations
(15 CFR parts 730 through 774);
International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (22 CFR parts 120 through
130); Export and Import of Nuclear
Equipment and Material (10 CFR part
110); regulations administered by the
Office of Foreign Assets Control (31 CFR

E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM

12JNP1