Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board, 29882-29886 [E6-7849]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29882
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All
appropriate Fund-financed response
under CERCLA has been implemented,
and no further response action by
responsible parties is appropriate; or
Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The
remedial investigation has shown that
the release poses no significant threat to
public health or the environment and,
therefore, taking of remedial measures is
not appropriate.
A partial deletion of a site from the
NPL does not affect or impede EPA’s
ability to conduct CERCLA response
activities for portions not deleted from
the NPL. In addition, deletion of a
portion of a site from the NPL does not
affect the liability of responsible parties
or impede agency efforts to recover costs
associated with response efforts. The
U.S. Army and Shell Oil Company will
be responsible for all future remedial
actions required at the areas deleted if
future site conditions warrant such
actions.
III. Deletion Procedures
Upon determination that at least one
of the criteria described in Section
300.425(e) of the NCP has been met,
EPA may formally begin deletion
procedures. The following procedures
were used for the proposed deletion of
the Internal Parcel from the RMA/NPL
Site:
(1) The Army has requested the
partial deletion and prepared the
relevant documents.
(2) The State of Colorado, through the
CDPHE, concurred with publication of
the notice of intent for partial deletion.
(3) Concurrent with the national
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion, a
local notice was published in a
newspaper of record and distributed to
appropriate Federal, State, and local
officials, and other interested parties.
These notices announced a thirty day
public comment period, ending May 26,
2006, based upon publication of the
notice in the Federal Register and a
local newspaper of record.
(4) Concurrent with this national
Notice of the Public Comment
Extension, a local notice has been
published in a newspaper of record and
has been distributed to appropriate
Federal, State, and local officials, and
other interested parties. These notices
announce a thirty day extension of the
public comment period, ending June 26,
2006.
(5) EPA has made all relevant
documents available at the information
repositories listed previously for public
inspection and copying.
Upon completion of the thirty
calendar day extension of the public
comment period, EPA Region 8 will
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 May 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
evaluate each significant comment and
any significant new data received before
issuing a final decision concerning the
proposed partial deletion. EPA will
prepare a responsiveness summary for
each significant comment and any
significant new data received during the
public comment period and will address
concerns presented in such comments
and data. The responsiveness summary
will be made available to the public at
the EPA Region 8 office and the
information repositories listed above
and will be included in the final
deletion package. Members of the public
are encouraged to contact EPA Region 8
to obtain a copy of the responsiveness
summaries. If, after review of all such
comments and data, EPA determines
that the partial deletion from the NPL is
appropriate, EPA will publish a final
notice of partial deletion in the Federal
Register. Deletion of the Internal Parcel
of the RMA/NPL Site does not actually
occur until a final notice of partial
deletion is published in the Federal
Register. A copy of the final partial
deletion package will be placed at the
EPA Region 8 office and the information
repositories listed above after the final
document has been published in the
Federal Register.
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site
Deletion
This notice announces a thirty day
extension of the public comment period
for the proposed partial deletion from
the RMA/NPL Site. EPA Region 8
announced its intent to delete the
Internal Parcel of the RMA/NPL Site
from the NPL on April 26, 2006. The
original basis for deleting the Internal
Parcel from the RMA/NPL Site has not
changed. The Federal Register notice
for the Internal Parcel (71 FR 24627,
Apr. 26, 2006) provides a thorough
discussion of the basis for the intended
partial deletion.
Dated: May 15, 2006.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. E6–7664 Filed 5–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 36
[CC Docket No. 80–286; FCC 06–70]
Jurisdictional Separations and Referral
to the Federal-State Joint Board
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission addresses several pending
issues related to the jurisdictional
separations process by which
incumbent local exchange carriers
(incumbent LECs) apportion regulated
costs between the intrastate and
interstate jurisdictions. The Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks
comment on issues relating to reform of
the jurisdictional separations process,
including several proposals submitted
to the Commission since its adoption of
the 2001 Separations Freeze Order.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
August 22, 2006. Reply comments are
due on or before November 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CC Docket No. 80–286, by
any of the following methods:
› Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
› Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. 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 e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
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: Ted
Burmeister, Attorney Advisor, at (202)
418–7389 or Michael Jacobs, at (202)
418–2859, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau, TTY (202) 418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 80–286, FCC
06–70, released on May 16, 2006. The
full text of this document is available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20554.
1. The FNPRM addresses several
pending issues related to the
jurisdictional separations process by
which incumbent LECs apportion
regulated costs between the intrastate
and interstate jurisdictions. The FNPRM
seeks comment on issues relating to
reform of the jurisdictional separations
process, including several proposals
submitted to the Commission since its
adoption of the 2001 Separations Freeze
Order, 66 FR 33202, June 21, 2001. The
technological and market landscape of
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the telecommunications industry has
continued to evolve since the adoption
of the 1997 Separations Notice, 62 FR
59842, which initiated a proceeding
seeking comment on the extent to which
legislative changes, technological
changes, and market changes warrant
comprehensive reform of the
separations process. Thus, in the
FNPRM, the Commission seeks
comment on the effects on its
separations rules of increased market
adoption of IP-enabled services such as
voice over IP (VoIP) services, among
other technological and market changes.
2. Because of the time that has passed
and changes that have occurred since
the 1997 Separations Notice, the
Commission asks that commenters
refresh the record on the 1997
Separations Notice. For instance, the
Commission seeks guidance on whether
competitive neutrality, administrative
simplicity, and principles of cost
causation still should be the primary
criteria for evaluating proposals for
reform of the separations rules, or
whether other criteria should be
balanced in addition to or in place of
these criteria. In addition, the
Commission solicits updated analysis of
whether the Supreme Court’s holding in
Smith v. Illinois, 282 U.S. 133 (1930), is
still applicable in light of competitive
market conditions. Furthermore, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
there is a continued need to prescribe
separations rules for either price cap or
rate-of-return incumbent LECs.
3. On December 19, 2001, following
adoption of the 2001 Separations Freeze
Order, the State Members of the FederalState Joint Board on Jurisdictional
Separations (Joint Board) filed the Glide
Path Paper, outlining seven options for
comprehensive separations reform,
including the advantages and
disadvantages of each option. The Glide
Path II Paper, prepared by the State
Members of the Joint Board in late
October 2005, proposes six options for
comprehensive separations reform,
some of which overlap with the seven
proposed in the original Glide Path
Paper. Both papers also outline several
goals for comprehensive separations
reform, including the principles that
separations should be simpler,
separations should be compatible with
new technologies and competitive
markets, and cost responsibilities
should follow jurisdictional
responsibilities. The Commission asks
commenters to refresh the record on the
Glide Path Paper, and, as requested by
the State Members of the Joint Board,
the Commission seeks comment on all
of the proposals in the Glide Path II
Paper.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 May 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
4. In a May 2004 letter to the
Commission, the State Members of the
Joint Board suggested a one-time data
collection designed to assist the
Commission in evaluating whether to
modify its rules pertaining to
jurisdictional separations, specifically,
the part 36 category relationships and
jurisdictional cost allocation factors.
The Commission believes that the
information derived from such a data
request will be useful in assisting it as
it contemplates comprehensive
separations reform. Appendix C of the
Order and FNPRM contains the draft
data request. The Commission seeks
comment generally on the data request’s
utility in assisting separations reform
efforts, and on whether, as currently
drafted, the data request will help the
Commission to elicit useful information
towards that end. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether there are
alternatives to a data request to help the
Commission educe the desired
information, and on whether there is
any way to streamline the draft data
request without sacrificing its utility.
5. In the 2001 Separations Freeze
Order, the Commission agreed with the
Joint Board’s recommendation that the
Commission commit itself to addressing
the separations ramifications of issues
associated with the emergence of new
technologies and local exchange service
competition. These issues include the
appropriate separations treatment of: (1)
Unbundled network elements; (2) digital
subscriber line services; (3) private
lines; and (4) Internet traffic. In accord
with the Commission’s commitment, the
Commission seeks comment on the
separations ramifications of these four
specified issues.
6. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on what effect competitive
changes in the local
telecommunications marketplace since
passage of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 (1996 Act) should have on
comprehensive reform of the
Commission’s separations rules; the
general interaction of the Commission’s
separations rules with its universal
service rules; the effects that separations
reform would have on evaluation of
special access rates; and the effect on
comprehensive separations reform, and
vice-versa, of a Commission grant or
denial of a BellSouth request for
forbearance from the separations rules.
Furthermore, the Commission seeks
comment on how any other issues and
proceedings before the Commission,
may affect, or be affected by,
comprehensive separations reform.
7. Finally, while the Commission
froze the separations category
relationships and the jurisdictional cost
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29883
allocation factors in the 2001
Separations Freeze Order, the
Commission also required that
categories or portions of categories that
had been directly assigned prior to the
separations freeze would continue to be
directly assigned to each jurisdiction.
There has been some disagreement,
however, between state commissions
and carriers regarding the application of
this direct assignment requirement. For
instance, at its February 2006 Winter
Meetings, the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC) Board of Directors adopted a
resolution stating that the Commission
‘‘should clarify that all carriers must
continue to directly assign all private
lines and special access circuits based
on existing line counts.’’ Conversely,
USTelecom asserts that the direct
assignment provision ‘‘is narrow and
does not require investment studies,’’
but that some state regulators are
attempting to compel carriers to
demonstrate that costs are directly
assigned in the proper manner. The
Commission seeks comment on the
clarifications sought by NARUC and by
USTelecom.
I. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
8. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, 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 the FNPRM.
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 the FNPRM provided
above. The Commission will send a
copy of the FNPRM, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition,
the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
9. In the 1997 Separations Notice, the
Commission noted that the network
infrastructure by that time had become
vastly different from the network and
services used to define the cost
categories appearing in the
Commission’s part 36 jurisdictional
separations rules, and that the
separations process codified in part 36
was developed during a time when
common carrier regulation presumed
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
29884
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
that interstate and intrastate
telecommunications service must be
provided through a regulated monopoly.
Thus, the Commission initiated a
proceeding with the goal of reviewing
comprehensively the Commission’s part
36 procedures to ensure that they meet
the objectives of the 1996 Act. The
Commission sought comment on the
extent to which legislative changes,
technological changes, and market
changes might warrant comprehensive
reform of the separations process.
Because over eight years have elapsed
since the closing of the comment cycle
on the 1997 Separations Notice, and the
industry has experienced myriad
changes during that time, we ask that
commenters, in their comments on the
present FNPRM, refresh the record on
the issues set forth in the 1997
Separations Notice, and we seek
comment on several new issues related
to separations reform.
10. We seek comment on four issues
relating to comprehensive separations
reform. First, the Commission seeks
comment on specific proposals for
comprehensive separations reform
advanced by the State Members of the
Joint Board. Second, the Commission
seeks comment on a draft data request
prepared by the State Members that is
intended to elicit data that may be
helpful in formulating a reformed
separations process. Third, the
Commission seeks comment on the
separations ramifications of four
specific issues associated with the
emergence of new technologies and
local exchange service competition,
including the appropriate separations
treatment of: (1) UNEs; (2) DSL services;
(3) private lines; and (4) Internet traffic.
Fourth, the Commission seeks comment
on how the market adoption and
regulatory treatment of IP-enabled
services, and other issues and
proceedings before the Commission,
may affect, or be affected by,
comprehensive separations reform.
11. Furthermore, we seek comment on
clarifications sought by NARUC and by
USTelecom as to direct assignment of
investment categories and portions of
investment categories during the freeze.
12. The purpose of proposed
separations reform is to ensure that the
Commission’s separations rules meet
the objectives of the 1996 Act, and to
consider changes that may need to be
made to the separations process in light
of changes in the law, technology, and
market structure of the
telecommunications industry. Though
the Commission originally proposed
that competitive neutrality,
administrative simplicity, and
principles of cost causation should be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 May 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
the primary criteria for evaluating
proposals for separations reform, in the
FNPRM we seek guidance on whether
these criteria should be retained as the
primary criteria, or whether other
criteria should be balanced in addition
to or in place of these criteria.
2. Legal Basis
13. The legal basis for the FNPRM is
contained in sections 1, 2, 4, 201
through 205, 215, 218, 220, 221(c), 254
and 410 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154, 201–205, 215, 218, 220, 221(c), 254
and 410; section 706(a) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
U.S.C. 157nt; and sections 1.421, 36.1
and 36.2 of the Commission’s rules, 47
CFR 1.421, 36.1, and 36.2.
3. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules May Apply
14. 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. See 5
U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 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(b). In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under section 3 of the Small Business
Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). Under the Small
Business Act, a ‘‘small business
concern’’ is one that: (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). 15 U.S.C. 632.
15. We have included small
incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis.
As noted above, a ‘‘small business’’
under the RFA is one that, inter alia,
meets the pertinent small business size
standard established by the SBA, and is
not dominant in its field of operation.
Section 121.201 of the SBA regulations
defines a small wireline
telecommunications business as one
with 1,500 or fewer employees. In
addition, 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.
Because our proposals concerning the
part 36 separations process will affect
all incumbent LECs providing interstate
services, some entities employing 1500
or fewer employees may be affected by
the proposals made in this FNPRM. We
therefore have included small
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis,
although we emphasize that this RFA
action has no effect on the
Commission’s analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
16. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business
size standard specifically for providers
of incumbent local exchange services.
The closest applicable size standard
under the SBA rules is for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under
the SBA definition, a carrier is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to the FCC’s Telephone
Trends Report data, 1,303 incumbent
LECs reported that they were engaged in
the provision of local exchange services.
Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated
1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees
and 283 have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
incumbent LECs are small entities that
may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted herein.
4. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
17. The FNPRM seeks comment on a
draft one-time data collection designed
to assist the Commission in evaluating
whether to modify its separations rules,
specifically, the part 36 category
relationships and jurisdictional cost
allocation factors. To assist the
Separations Joint Board and the
Commission in this regard, carriers
would be requested to identify and
explain the way in which specific
categories of costs and revenues are
recorded for accounting and
jurisdictional purposes. The
Commission seeks comment on
alternatives to the data collection,
including the draft data request’s impact
on small incumbent LECs. Furthermore,
we believe that incumbent LECs,
including small incumbent LECs, would
be able to readily obtain the required
data at minimal additional costs. We
believe that the information derived
from a data request will be useful in
assisting the Commission as it
contemplates comprehensive
separations reform, including evaluation
of the possible impact of various reform
efforts specifically on small incumbent
LECs. We emphasize that any data
request that the Commission adopts
looking towards comprehensive
separations reform would be a one-time
request.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
18. 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 (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance and reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for
small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–
(4).
19. As described above, because over
eight years have elapsed since the
closing of the comment cycle on the
1997 Separations Notice, and the
industry has experienced myriad
changes during that time, we ask that
commenters, in their comments on the
FNPRM, refresh the record on the issues
set forth in the 1997 Separations Notice.
We also seek comment on specific
proposals for comprehensive
separations reform advanced by the
State Members of the Joint Board, as
well as a draft data request prepared by
the State Members that is intended to
elicit data that may be helpful in
formulating a reformed separations
process. For each of these issues and
proposals, we seek comment on the
effects our proposals would have on
small entities, and whether any rules
that we adopt should apply differently
to small entities.
20. For instance, we ask that
commenters specifically address how
proposals for comprehensive
separations reform advanced by the
State Members, the Glide Path Paper
and Glide Path II Paper, would affect
small carriers, including rural
incumbent LECs. Furthermore, we
particularly seek comment on the
burdens of the draft data request on
small carriers. Moreover, we seek
comment on whether there are
alternatives to a data request to help the
Commission educe the desired
information, and on whether there is
any way to streamline the draft data
request without sacrificing its utility.
Finally, as a general matter, we direct
commenters to ‘‘consider how costly
and burdensome any proposed changes
to the Commission’s separations rules
would be for small carriers, and whether
such changes would disproportionately
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 May 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
affect specific types of carriers or
ratepayers.’’
21. We also emphasize that several of
our proposals in the FNPRM, if adopted,
could have the effect of eliminating the
separations rules in whole or in part.
For example, we seek comment on
whether there is a continued need to
prescribe separations rules for either
price cap or rate-of-return incumbent
LECs. In addition, several of the
proposals in the Glide Path Paper and
Glide Path II Paper call for simplifying
separations procedures or eliminating
separations altogether. Implementation
of these proposals would have the same
ultimate effect as freezing the
separations rules, namely, easing the
administrative burden of regulatory
compliance for LECs, including small
incumbent LECs. As we recognize in the
final RFA certification, the freeze has
eliminated the need for all incumbent
LECs, including incumbent LECs with
1500 employees or fewer, to complete
certain annual studies formerly required
by the Commission’s rules. If this
extended action can be said to have any
affect under the RFA, it is to reduce a
regulatory compliance burden for small
incumbent LECs, by eliminating the
aforementioned separations studies and
providing these carriers with greater
regulatory certainty. Thus, the
Commission is considering several
proposals that ultimately could lead
directly to reducing the regulatory
compliance burden for small incumbent
LECs.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
22. None.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
23. The FNPRM does not contain any
new, modified, or proposed information
collections subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it
does not contain any new, modified, or
proposed ‘‘information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
C. Ex Parte Presentations
24. These matters shall be treated as
a ‘‘permit-but-disclose proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentations must contain summaries
of the substance of the presentations
and not merely a listing of the subjects
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29885
discussed. More than a one or two
sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally
required. Other requirements pertaining
to oral and written presentations are set
forth in section 1.1206(b) of the
Commission’s rules.
D. Comment Filing Procedures
25. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments on or before August 22, 2006.
Reply comments are due on or before
November 20, 2006. Comments may be
filed using: (1) The Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
26. Electronic Filers: Comments may
be filed electronically using the Internet
by accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the
website for submitting comments.
27. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket
or rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of this proceeding, filers must
transmit one electronic copy of the
comments for each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also
submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing
instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
following words in the body of the
message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
28. Paper Filers: Parties who choose
to file by paper must file an original and
four copies 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.
29. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H.
Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission.
30. The Commission’s contractor will
receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
29886
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Commission’s Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours
at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All
hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
31. 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.
32. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
33. People with Disabilities: To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
34. In addition, one copy of each
pleading must be sent to the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554; Web site: https://
www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1–800–378–
3160. Furthermore, three copies of each
pleading must be sent to Antoinette
Stevens, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room 5-B521, Washington, DC 20554; email: antoinette.stevens@fcc.gov.
35. Filings and comments are also
available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours
at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC,
20554. Copies may also be purchased
from the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Customers may contact BCPI through its
Web site: https://www.bcpiweb.com, by
e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by
telephone at (202) 488–5300 or (800)
378–3160, or by facsimile at (202) 488–
5563.
II. Ordering Clauses
36. Pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 2, 4, 201–205,
215, 218, 220, 229, 254, and 410 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201–
205, 215, 218, 220, 229, 254 and 410,
this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is adopted.
37. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 May 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 36
Communications common carriers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–7849 Filed 5–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 06–956; MB Docket No.04–258; RM–
11000; RM–11149]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Boulder
Town, Levan, Mount Pleasant and
Richfield, UT
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule, dismissal.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document dismisses as
defective a petition for rulemaking filed
by Micro Communications, Inc. licensee
of Station KCFM(FM), Channel 244C,
Levan, Utah, proposing to substitute
Channel 229C for Channel 244C at
Levan and modify the license for Station
KCFM accordingly. To accommodate
this proposal, the substitution of
Channel 244C for Channel 229C at
Richfield, Utah, and modification of the
license of Station KCYQ(FM) was also
proposed. Mid-Utah Radio, Inc.,
licensee of Station KCYQ opposed the
proposal and filed a counterproposal
requesting the allotment of Channel
231C at Boulder Town, Utah, and the
reallotment of Channel 229C from
Richfield to Mount Pleasant, Utah. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau,
(202) 418–2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket No. 04–258,
adopted May 3, 2006, and released May
5, 2006. The Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, 69 FR 45302 (July 29, 2004)
was issued at the request of Micro
Communications, Inc. Our engineering
analysis confirms that the petition for
rule making failed to protect the Station
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
KCYQ license site as required by
§ 73.208 of the rules. At the time of
filing, Channel 244C at Richfield at
Station KCYQ’s license site was shortspaced to both Channel 246A at Beaver,
Utah and Channel 244C at Mesquite,
Utah. The counterproposal filed by
Micro Communications, Inc. is
dismissed in part. The portion of the
counterproposal that proposed the
allotment of Channel 231C at Boulder
Town will be proposed in a separate
Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The
full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
Commission’s Reference Center 445
Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. The complete text of this
decision may also be purchased from
the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC, 20054, telephone 800–
378–3160 or https://www.BCPIWEB.com.
This document is not subject to the
Congressional Review Act.
The Commission, is, therefore, not
required to submit a copy of this Report
and Order to GAO, pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule
was dismissed.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. E6–7844 Filed 5–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-month Finding for a
Petition to List the California Spotted
Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as
Threatened or Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
the California spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis occidentalis) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. After reviewing the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the petitioned
action is not warranted. However, we
will continue to seek new information
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29882-29886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7849]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 36
[CC Docket No. 80-286; FCC 06-70]
Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State
Joint Board
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses several pending
issues related to the jurisdictional separations process by which
incumbent local exchange carriers (incumbent LECs) apportion regulated
costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. The Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on issues relating to
reform of the jurisdictional separations process, including several
proposals submitted to the Commission since its adoption of the 2001
Separations Freeze Order.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 22, 2006. Reply comments
are due on or before November 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CC Docket No. 80-286,
by any of the following methods:
[dec221] Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[dec221] Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[dec221] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 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: Ted Burmeister, Attorney Advisor, at
(202) 418-7389 or Michael Jacobs, at (202) 418-2859, Telecommunications
Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, TTY (202) 418-
0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 80-286,
FCC 06-70, released on May 16, 2006. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20554.
1. The FNPRM addresses several pending issues related to the
jurisdictional separations process by which incumbent LECs apportion
regulated costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions.
The FNPRM seeks comment on issues relating to reform of the
jurisdictional separations process, including several proposals
submitted to the Commission since its adoption of the 2001 Separations
Freeze Order, 66 FR 33202, June 21, 2001. The technological and market
landscape of
[[Page 29883]]
the telecommunications industry has continued to evolve since the
adoption of the 1997 Separations Notice, 62 FR 59842, which initiated a
proceeding seeking comment on the extent to which legislative changes,
technological changes, and market changes warrant comprehensive reform
of the separations process. Thus, in the FNPRM, the Commission seeks
comment on the effects on its separations rules of increased market
adoption of IP-enabled services such as voice over IP (VoIP) services,
among other technological and market changes.
2. Because of the time that has passed and changes that have
occurred since the 1997 Separations Notice, the Commission asks that
commenters refresh the record on the 1997 Separations Notice. For
instance, the Commission seeks guidance on whether competitive
neutrality, administrative simplicity, and principles of cost causation
still should be the primary criteria for evaluating proposals for
reform of the separations rules, or whether other criteria should be
balanced in addition to or in place of these criteria. In addition, the
Commission solicits updated analysis of whether the Supreme Court's
holding in Smith v. Illinois, 282 U.S. 133 (1930), is still applicable
in light of competitive market conditions. Furthermore, the Commission
seeks comment on whether there is a continued need to prescribe
separations rules for either price cap or rate-of-return incumbent
LECs.
3. On December 19, 2001, following adoption of the 2001 Separations
Freeze Order, the State Members of the Federal-State Joint Board on
Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board) filed the Glide Path Paper,
outlining seven options for comprehensive separations reform, including
the advantages and disadvantages of each option. The Glide Path II
Paper, prepared by the State Members of the Joint Board in late October
2005, proposes six options for comprehensive separations reform, some
of which overlap with the seven proposed in the original Glide Path
Paper. Both papers also outline several goals for comprehensive
separations reform, including the principles that separations should be
simpler, separations should be compatible with new technologies and
competitive markets, and cost responsibilities should follow
jurisdictional responsibilities. The Commission asks commenters to
refresh the record on the Glide Path Paper, and, as requested by the
State Members of the Joint Board, the Commission seeks comment on all
of the proposals in the Glide Path II Paper.
4. In a May 2004 letter to the Commission, the State Members of the
Joint Board suggested a one-time data collection designed to assist the
Commission in evaluating whether to modify its rules pertaining to
jurisdictional separations, specifically, the part 36 category
relationships and jurisdictional cost allocation factors. The
Commission believes that the information derived from such a data
request will be useful in assisting it as it contemplates comprehensive
separations reform. Appendix C of the Order and FNPRM contains the
draft data request. The Commission seeks comment generally on the data
request's utility in assisting separations reform efforts, and on
whether, as currently drafted, the data request will help the
Commission to elicit useful information towards that end. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether there are alternatives to a
data request to help the Commission educe the desired information, and
on whether there is any way to streamline the draft data request
without sacrificing its utility.
5. In the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, the Commission agreed with
the Joint Board's recommendation that the Commission commit itself to
addressing the separations ramifications of issues associated with the
emergence of new technologies and local exchange service competition.
These issues include the appropriate separations treatment of: (1)
Unbundled network elements; (2) digital subscriber line services; (3)
private lines; and (4) Internet traffic. In accord with the
Commission's commitment, the Commission seeks comment on the
separations ramifications of these four specified issues.
6. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on what effect
competitive changes in the local telecommunications marketplace since
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) should have on
comprehensive reform of the Commission's separations rules; the general
interaction of the Commission's separations rules with its universal
service rules; the effects that separations reform would have on
evaluation of special access rates; and the effect on comprehensive
separations reform, and vice-versa, of a Commission grant or denial of
a BellSouth request for forbearance from the separations rules.
Furthermore, the Commission seeks comment on how any other issues and
proceedings before the Commission, may affect, or be affected by,
comprehensive separations reform.
7. Finally, while the Commission froze the separations category
relationships and the jurisdictional cost allocation factors in the
2001 Separations Freeze Order, the Commission also required that
categories or portions of categories that had been directly assigned
prior to the separations freeze would continue to be directly assigned
to each jurisdiction. There has been some disagreement, however,
between state commissions and carriers regarding the application of
this direct assignment requirement. For instance, at its February 2006
Winter Meetings, the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners (NARUC) Board of Directors adopted a resolution stating
that the Commission ``should clarify that all carriers must continue to
directly assign all private lines and special access circuits based on
existing line counts.'' Conversely, USTelecom asserts that the direct
assignment provision ``is narrow and does not require investment
studies,'' but that some state regulators are attempting to compel
carriers to demonstrate that costs are directly assigned in the proper
manner. The Commission seeks comment on the clarifications sought by
NARUC and by USTelecom.
I. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
8. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, 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 the FNPRM. 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 the FNPRM provided above. The
Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
9. In the 1997 Separations Notice, the Commission noted that the
network infrastructure by that time had become vastly different from
the network and services used to define the cost categories appearing
in the Commission's part 36 jurisdictional separations rules, and that
the separations process codified in part 36 was developed during a time
when common carrier regulation presumed
[[Page 29884]]
that interstate and intrastate telecommunications service must be
provided through a regulated monopoly. Thus, the Commission initiated a
proceeding with the goal of reviewing comprehensively the Commission's
part 36 procedures to ensure that they meet the objectives of the 1996
Act. The Commission sought comment on the extent to which legislative
changes, technological changes, and market changes might warrant
comprehensive reform of the separations process. Because over eight
years have elapsed since the closing of the comment cycle on the 1997
Separations Notice, and the industry has experienced myriad changes
during that time, we ask that commenters, in their comments on the
present FNPRM, refresh the record on the issues set forth in the 1997
Separations Notice, and we seek comment on several new issues related
to separations reform.
10. We seek comment on four issues relating to comprehensive
separations reform. First, the Commission seeks comment on specific
proposals for comprehensive separations reform advanced by the State
Members of the Joint Board. Second, the Commission seeks comment on a
draft data request prepared by the State Members that is intended to
elicit data that may be helpful in formulating a reformed separations
process. Third, the Commission seeks comment on the separations
ramifications of four specific issues associated with the emergence of
new technologies and local exchange service competition, including the
appropriate separations treatment of: (1) UNEs; (2) DSL services; (3)
private lines; and (4) Internet traffic. Fourth, the Commission seeks
comment on how the market adoption and regulatory treatment of IP-
enabled services, and other issues and proceedings before the
Commission, may affect, or be affected by, comprehensive separations
reform.
11. Furthermore, we seek comment on clarifications sought by NARUC
and by USTelecom as to direct assignment of investment categories and
portions of investment categories during the freeze.
12. The purpose of proposed separations reform is to ensure that
the Commission's separations rules meet the objectives of the 1996 Act,
and to consider changes that may need to be made to the separations
process in light of changes in the law, technology, and market
structure of the telecommunications industry. Though the Commission
originally proposed that competitive neutrality, administrative
simplicity, and principles of cost causation should be the primary
criteria for evaluating proposals for separations reform, in the FNPRM
we seek guidance on whether these criteria should be retained as the
primary criteria, or whether other criteria should be balanced in
addition to or in place of these criteria.
2. Legal Basis
13. The legal basis for the FNPRM is contained in sections 1, 2, 4,
201 through 205, 215, 218, 220, 221(c), 254 and 410 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201-
205, 215, 218, 220, 221(c), 254 and 410; section 706(a) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157nt; and sections 1.421,
36.1 and 36.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.421, 36.1, and 36.2.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules May Apply
14. 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. See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 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(b). In addition, the
term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small
business concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C.
601(3). Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is
one that: (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). 15 U.S.C. 632.
15. We have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As
noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter
alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard established by
the SBA, and is not dominant in its field of operation. Section 121.201
of the SBA regulations defines a small wireline telecommunications
business as one with 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 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. Because our proposals
concerning the part 36 separations process will affect all incumbent
LECs providing interstate services, some entities employing 1500 or
fewer employees may be affected by the proposals made in this FNPRM. We
therefore have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis,
although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on the
Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
16. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small
business size standard specifically for providers of incumbent local
exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the SBA
definition, a carrier is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,303 incumbent
LECs reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange
services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most incumbent LECs are small entities
that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
17. The FNPRM seeks comment on a draft one-time data collection
designed to assist the Commission in evaluating whether to modify its
separations rules, specifically, the part 36 category relationships and
jurisdictional cost allocation factors. To assist the Separations Joint
Board and the Commission in this regard, carriers would be requested to
identify and explain the way in which specific categories of costs and
revenues are recorded for accounting and jurisdictional purposes. The
Commission seeks comment on alternatives to the data collection,
including the draft data request's impact on small incumbent LECs.
Furthermore, we believe that incumbent LECs, including small incumbent
LECs, would be able to readily obtain the required data at minimal
additional costs. We believe that the information derived from a data
request will be useful in assisting the Commission as it contemplates
comprehensive separations reform, including evaluation of the possible
impact of various reform efforts specifically on small incumbent LECs.
We emphasize that any data request that the Commission adopts looking
towards comprehensive separations reform would be a one-time request.
[[Page 29885]]
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
18. 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 (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small
entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4).
19. As described above, because over eight years have elapsed since
the closing of the comment cycle on the 1997 Separations Notice, and
the industry has experienced myriad changes during that time, we ask
that commenters, in their comments on the FNPRM, refresh the record on
the issues set forth in the 1997 Separations Notice. We also seek
comment on specific proposals for comprehensive separations reform
advanced by the State Members of the Joint Board, as well as a draft
data request prepared by the State Members that is intended to elicit
data that may be helpful in formulating a reformed separations process.
For each of these issues and proposals, we seek comment on the effects
our proposals would have on small entities, and whether any rules that
we adopt should apply differently to small entities.
20. For instance, we ask that commenters specifically address how
proposals for comprehensive separations reform advanced by the State
Members, the Glide Path Paper and Glide Path II Paper, would affect
small carriers, including rural incumbent LECs. Furthermore, we
particularly seek comment on the burdens of the draft data request on
small carriers. Moreover, we seek comment on whether there are
alternatives to a data request to help the Commission educe the desired
information, and on whether there is any way to streamline the draft
data request without sacrificing its utility. Finally, as a general
matter, we direct commenters to ``consider how costly and burdensome
any proposed changes to the Commission's separations rules would be for
small carriers, and whether such changes would disproportionately
affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers.''
21. We also emphasize that several of our proposals in the FNPRM,
if adopted, could have the effect of eliminating the separations rules
in whole or in part. For example, we seek comment on whether there is a
continued need to prescribe separations rules for either price cap or
rate-of-return incumbent LECs. In addition, several of the proposals in
the Glide Path Paper and Glide Path II Paper call for simplifying
separations procedures or eliminating separations altogether.
Implementation of these proposals would have the same ultimate effect
as freezing the separations rules, namely, easing the administrative
burden of regulatory compliance for LECs, including small incumbent
LECs. As we recognize in the final RFA certification, the freeze has
eliminated the need for all incumbent LECs, including incumbent LECs
with 1500 employees or fewer, to complete certain annual studies
formerly required by the Commission's rules. If this extended action
can be said to have any affect under the RFA, it is to reduce a
regulatory compliance burden for small incumbent LECs, by eliminating
the aforementioned separations studies and providing these carriers
with greater regulatory certainty. Thus, the Commission is considering
several proposals that ultimately could lead directly to reducing the
regulatory compliance burden for small incumbent LECs.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
22. None.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
23. The FNPRM does not contain any new, modified, or proposed
information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new, modified, or proposed ``information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
C. Ex Parte Presentations
24. These matters shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally required. Other requirements
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
D. Comment Filing Procedures
25. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before
August 22, 2006. Reply comments are due on or before November 20, 2006.
Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal,
or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
26. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting
comments.
27. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
28. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and four copies 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.
29. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
30. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the
[[Page 29886]]
Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the
building.
31. 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.
32. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
33. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202)
418-0432 (TTY).
34. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 445
12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; Web site: https://
www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1-800-378-3160. Furthermore, three copies of
each pleading must be sent to Antoinette Stevens, Telecommunications
Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-B521,
Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: antoinette.stevens@fcc.gov.
35. Filings and comments are also available for public inspection
and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC, 20554. Copies may also be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its
Web site: https://www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by
telephone at (202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160, or by facsimile at (202)
488-5563.
II. Ordering Clauses
36. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4, 201-
205, 215, 218, 220, 229, 254, and 410 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201-205, 215, 218, 220, 229,
254 and 410, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
37. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 36
Communications common carriers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7849 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
