[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39233-39237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15643]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 51, 53, and 64
[CC Docket Nos. 95-20, 98-10; FCC 13-69]
Data Practices, Computer III Further Remand: BOC Provision of
Enhanced Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Further notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further
Notice), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks
comment on how to streamline or eliminate legacy regulations contained
in the Computer Inquiry proceedings and that are applicable to the Bell
Operating Companies (BOCs). The FNPRM: Seeks data on the changing
market for narrowband enhanced services, in particular, the extent to
which enhanced service providers (ESPs) continue to need access to the
BOCs' basic network transmission services offered through comparably
efficient interconnection (CEI) and open network architecture (ONA)
services; proposes eliminating CEI requirements and seeks comment on
whether to retain only limited ONA inputs that ESPs require in areas
where there are no competitive alternatives; and seeks comment on the
need for the continuing application of the All-Carrier Rule that
requires non-BOC incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to offer non-
discriminatory access to basic network services for unaffiliated ESPs.
DATES: Comments are due July 31, 2013, and reply comments are due
August 30, 2013. Written comments on the paperwork Reduction Act
proposed or modified information collection requirements must be
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before [date].
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments, identified by CC
Docket No. 00-175, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodie May, WCB, CPD, (202) 418-1580 or
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the Paperwork
Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this
document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Judith Boley Herman
at 202-418-0214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice in CC Docket Nos. 95-20, 98-10; FCC 13-69, released on
May 17, 2013. The full text of this document, which is part of the
Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, is available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, and may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI,
Inc. via their Web site, http://www.bcpi.com, or call 1-800-378-3160.
This document is available in alternative formats (computer diskette,
large print, audio record, and Braille). Persons with disabilities who
need documents in these formats may contact the FCC by email:
[email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. All pleadings are to reference CC Docket Nos. 95-20, 98-10;
FCC 13-69. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must
be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
Synopsis of Further Notice
I. Background
1. In its Computer II proceedings, the Commission required AT&T
(and subsequently the BOCs) to offer enhanced services through
structurally separate subsidiaries. Amendment of Sec. 64.702 of the
Commission's rules and regulations (Computer II Final Decision), 77 FCC
2d 384 (1980), recon., 84 FCC 2d 50 (1980), further recon., 88 FCC 2d
512 (1981), affirmed sub nom. Computer and Communications Industry
Ass'n v. FCC, 693 F.2d 198 (DC Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 938
(1983). In the subsequent Computer III proceedings, the Commission
determined that the benefits of structural separation were outweighed
by the costs and that non-structural safeguards could protect competing
[[Page 39234]]
ESPs from improper cost allocation and discrimination by the BOCs while
avoiding the inefficiencies of structural separation. The Commission
adopted CEI and ONA as non-structural safeguards that require the BOCs
to offer nondiscriminatory interconnection to basic transmission
services that competitors purchase to provide enhanced services,
primarily to end users that use narrowband telephone technology.
Amendment of Sec. 64.702 of the Commission's rules and regulations, CC
Docket No. 85-229, Phase I, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986) (subsequent history
omitted). The Commission has identified examples of narrowband enhanced
services as voice mail, store and forward services, fax, data
processing, alarm monitoring, and dial-up gateways to on-line
databases. BOCs must comply with CEI and ONA requirements in order to
offer enhanced services on an ``integrated'' basis instead of through a
structurally separate affiliate as required by Sec. 64.702 of the
Commission's rules.
2. The BOCs' CEI plans detail how they provide unaffiliated ESPs
with interconnection to basic transmission services on the same terms
and conditions that the BOCs use for their own enhanced services
offerings. The BOCs' ONA plans, based on the architecture of the BOCs'
networks as they existed in the late 1980s, offer ESPs unbundled,
tariffed access to basic transmission services regardless of whether
the BOCs' affiliated enhanced services offerings use the same
components.
3. The Commission has had in place a long-standing examination of
the substantive Computer III structure and what safeguards are
appropriate to ensure the continued competitiveness of the enhanced
services market. In 1998, the Commission sought comment on what
safeguards for BOC provision of enhanced services made sense in light
of technological, market, and legal conditions, particularly the
passage of the market opening provisions in the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 (1996 Act), such as the section 251 unbundling requirements, 47
U.S.C. 251. 63 FR 9749-01 (Feb. 26, 1998); 66 FR 15064-01 (Mar. 15,
2001).
4. Since 1998, the Commission has modified or eliminated many of
the Computer III non-structural separation requirements. In 1999, it
streamlined the CEI requirements. 64 FR 14141-01 (Mar. 24, 1999). In
2005, the Commission granted the BOCs significant relief from Computer
III requirements for wireline broadband Internet access services.
Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over
Wireline Facilities, CC Docket No. 02-33, Report and Order and Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14875-76, para. 41 (2005)
(WBIAS Order), aff'd, Time Warner Telecom v. FCC, 507 F.3d 205 (3rd
Cir. 2007). The Commission has also granted forbearance from
application of Computer Inquiry rules to the extent that the carriers
offer other broadband services. See, e.g., Petitions of the Verizon
Telephone Companies for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 160(c) in the
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence, and Virginia
Beach Metropolitan Statistical Areas, WC Docket No. 06-172, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 21293, 21318, para. 45 (2007). In light
of these changes, the Computer III requirements currently apply only to
the provision of enhanced services using narrowband telephone
technology.
II. Discussion
5. In order to determine how we may streamline or eliminate the
remaining legacy Computer III obligations, we seek comment on the
continued viability of the substantive CEI and ONA narrowband
requirements. Recognizing that the enhanced services provider industry
may continue to use the BOCs' narrowband networks to serve customers,
we seek comment on how we might simplify and modernize efficient access
to service elements that competitors still need while at the same time
eliminating services that are no longer necessary. Below, we propose to
eliminate CEI requirements and seek comment on a specific streamlined
process we might adopt to review BOC requests to eliminate or modify
their ONA offerings. We expect that this Further Notice will provide
data that may allow us to grant some relief from these legacy
regulations in an efficient and comprehensive manner.
6. The Commission made clear when it adopted the Computer III
requirements that a ``major goal of ONA is to increase opportunities
for ESPs to use the BOCs' regulated networks in highly efficient ways,
enabling ESPs to expand their markets for their present services and
develop new offerings as well, all to the benefit of consumers.''
Computer III Remand Proceeding, CC Docket No. 90-368, 5 FCC Rcd 7719,
7720, paras. 7, 11(1990). The Commission intended the ONA framework to
evolve. It did not prescribe a specific network design for ONA services
and stated that the BOCs, with input from the enhanced services
industry, should implement ONA in a way that matched the capabilities
of their networks, ``both current and future, with needs of the ESPs.''
Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-
2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 1, 11, para. 3
(1988). The Commission intended originally that CEI plans would be an
interim measure until the BOCs fully implemented ONA. Referring to CEI
as a ``first phase,'' the Commission intended CEI to provide ESPs with
interconnection to the BOCs' networks that was substantially equivalent
to the interconnection the BOCs provided for their own enhanced
services until the BOCs fully unbundled their networks to ESPs through
ONA. Although the Commission eliminated formal approval of CEI plans,
we have continued to require the BOCs to maintain their CEI plans and
post them on the Internet.
7. We propose to eliminate the requirement that BOCs maintain and
post their CEI plans on the Internet. CEI plans were always intended to
be an interim measure, designed to bridge the gap between the
Commission's decision to lift structural separation in Computer III and
the implementation of ONA. In light of the changing market for
narrowband enhanced services, we expect that CEI plans are not
necessary to protect against access discrimination. We seek comment on
this proposal. ONA has provided ESPs a greater level of protection
against access discrimination than CEI. Under ONA, not only must the
BOCs offer network services to competing ESPs in compliance with the
nine CEI ``equal access'' parameters, but they must also unbundle and
tariff key network service elements beyond those they use to provide
their own enhanced services offerings. To the extent that we find it
necessary to retain any limited ONA requirements, we expect that ESPs
will have adequate access to the BOCs' legacy network through those
arrangements.
8. We seek current information on whether ONA offerings continue to
be an effective means of providing competitive ESPs with access to
unbundled network services they need to structure efficient service
offerings. To the extent that the requirements or offerings are
ineffective, we request that commenters cite to specific instances to
support their claims. The Commission is now examining the technological
transition of legacy networks and protocols toward modern networks and
services in several contexts. See, e.g., Pleading Cycle Established for
AT&T and NTCA Petition, GN Docket No. 12-353, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd
15766 (rel. Dec. 14, 2012) (seeking comment on
[[Page 39235]]
AT&T and National Telecommunications Cooperative Association petitions
to open proceedings on the transition from TDM to IP networks); FCC
Chairman Julius Genachowski Announces Formation of ``Technology
Transitions Policy Task Force,'' News Release (Dec. 10, 2012);
Technology Transitions Policy Task Force Seeks Comment on Potential
Trials, GN Docket No. 13-5, Public Notice, DA 13-1016 (rel. May 10,
2013), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1016A1.pdf. ONA requirements are legacy regulations aimed at
giving competitors wholesale access to narrowband technologies for the
provision of enhanced services, and we are therefore interested in
whether competitors are using narrowband ONA offerings to offer new
services or whether they are transitioning away from narrowband
products. We seek comment on that question. We also ask the BOCs to
provide information on specific narrowband ONA offerings that they
currently provision for unaffiliated ESPs. In particular, we seek
information about specific service inputs that ESPs may still require
from the BOCs to serve narrowband customers and on whether we should
eliminate all other services.
9. We seek comment on the extent to which the BOCs themselves
continue to provide narrowband enhanced services and whether there are
sufficient alternatives such that the BOCs are prevented, at least in
some areas, from engaging in harmful discrimination against
unaffiliated ESPs. We seek data on the alternatives available and the
specific markets in which such alternatives are available. Do ESPs
still rely primarily on narrowband ONA services, or do they use other
means to obtain services? We are interested in whether enhanced service
competitors use a combination of inputs from different providers.
10. The Commission originally required the BOCs to maintain a
sufficient level of uniformity among their ONA services, in part so
that ESPs could market national offerings. Is this requirement still
necessary today for narrowband offerings or do ESPs seek more tailored
arrangements based on their customer base? Commenters should identify
what other network platforms, such as cable or broadband, offer viable
options for re-structuring existing enhanced services that customers
still use and whether ESPs would have access to those options in the
areas in which their customers are located, including in rural areas.
If alternatives are available, do they enable functionalities that ESPs
require for specific narrowband products, such as alarm monitoring
services or voice mail? Commenters should explain whether ESPs use ONA
offerings for any public safety related offerings. In addition, we seek
comment on whether ESPs obtain from the BOCs unbundled network elements
under section 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 251, if the providers are also
telecommunications carriers or if they can obtain basic services from
competitive telecommunications providers.
11. The ONA framework consists of multiple requirements in addition
to the tariffing of basic service offerings. These include the ONA
amendment process under which a BOC that seeks to offer an enhanced
service that uses a new basic service element, or otherwise uses
different configurations of underlying basic services than those in its
approved ONA plan, must amend its ONA plan at least 90 days before it
offers the new enhanced service. In addition, an ESP can request a new
ONA basic service from the BOC and must receive a response from the BOC
within 120 days regarding whether the BOC will provide the service. The
BOC must evaluate and justify its response using specific factors,
including market area demand, utility to ESPs as perceived by the
providers themselves, and cost and technical feasibility. We are
interested in obtaining information about how often the BOCs received a
request under the 120 day process, including the date of the most
recent request, and the outcome of the request. The BOCs should also
address the last time they amended their ONA plans. ESPs should address
whether the 120 day process continues to be of value and whether they
contemplate using it in the future. We seek comment on the extent to
which the narrowband ONA obligations may increase the BOCs' costs of
providing enhanced services. Commenters should identify costs with
specificity wherever possible. We also ask commenters to address
whether there are continuing benefits associated with the obligations
that justify the costs.
12. At the beginning of the ONA implementation process, the
Commission found that it would not be reasonable for BOCs to withdraw
any services listed in their approved ONA plans and that it would not
look favorably on requests for withdrawal. It did, however, outline a
process for BOCs to withdraw ONA services. It stated that, once an ONA
service element was federally tariffed, the BOC must request and
receive advance approval in writing before filing tariff revisions to
discontinue offering of that service. Filing and Review of Open Network
Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 7646, 7652-53, para. 10 (1991). The Commission, acting
through the Wireline Competition Bureau, has granted such approvals in
a few limited circumstances, each involving an extended proceeding. In
those proceedings, the Bureau evaluated the reasonableness of the
withdrawal request to see if circumstances justified the elimination of
specific ONA services. It reviewed criteria including whether the BOC
had existing customers for the service and whether suitable alternative
services existed. It also accepted BOC proposals that existing
customers should have an opportunity to continue to purchase the
withdrawn ONA service element on a grandfathered basis. See BellSouth
Open Network Architecture Plan Amendment, CC Docket No. 88-2,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15844, 15847-48, para. 5
(Wireline Comp. Bur. 2003); Qwest Petition for Permission to Withdraw
ONA Services, WC Docket No. 02-355, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19
FCC Rcd 7164, 7167, para. 6 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2004). We seek comment
on what type of simplified process might now be feasible for BOCs to
use to withdraw ONA service elements that they assert are no longer
useful or for which there are alternative offerings. Should we use the
same criteria the Bureau relied upon in reviewing past requests? We
seek comment on how precisely a BOC should define the service area in
which it requests to eliminate services. By requiring BOCs to
demonstrate with specificity which ONA services they seek to retire and
what alternatives are available, we can move toward an orderly and
efficient process for eliminating services that may no longer be
necessary.
13. We seek comment on what type of process would be most efficient
for us to review requests to reduce or eliminate ONA service offerings
that are included in the BOCs' ONA plans and tariffs. Because the
elimination of basic narrowband service elements currently available
under the ONA plans could impact ESPs that have limited alternatives
for these services, we seek comment on adopting a discontinuance
process that allows for comments, a notice period, and affirmative
action by the Commission. This would allow more time for ESPs to
transition to other arrangements whether from the BOCs, themselves, or
alternative providers. We seek comment on adopting a process
[[Page 39236]]
that is similar to the standard streamlined process for service
discontinuance applications under section 214 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
214. Under the section 214 process, a dominant carrier such as a BOC
that seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair service must notify
affected customers and file an application with the Commission. The
application is automatically granted on the 60th day after its filing
unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will
not automatically be effective. 47 CFR 63.71. Specifically, we seek
comment on the following proposal:
A BOC that seeks to withdraw and discontinue narrowband Open
Network Architecture (ONA)-related services shall be subject to the
following procedures:
The BOC shall notify all affected customers of the planned
withdrawal and discontinuance in writing. The notification shall
include the name and address of the carrier, date of planned service
withdrawal and discontinuance, points of geographic areas of service
affected, and a brief description of the type of service affected. The
notification shall also include a statement to customers as follows:
The FCC will normally authorize this proposed withdrawal and
discontinuance of service unless it is shown that customers would be
unable to receive service or a reasonable substitute from another
carrier or that the public convenience and necessity is otherwise
adversely affected. If you wish to object, file your comments as
soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the Commission
releases public notice of the proposed withdrawal or discontinuance.
Comments should include specific information about the impact of
this proposed withdrawal and discontinuance on you or your company,
including any inability to acquire reasonable substitute service.
Comments must be filed electronically using the Internet through the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) and reference
the proceeding number on the public notice. ECFS is accessible at
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
The BOC shall file with this Commission, on or after the date on
which it has given notice to all affected customers, an application
which shall contain the name and address of the carrier, date of
planned service withdrawal and discontinuance, points of geographic
areas of service affected, brief description of the type of service
affected, brief description of the dates and methods of notice to all
affected customers, or a statement that no customers are currently
using the service, and any other supplemental information the
Commission may require.
The application to withdraw and discontinue ONA services shall be
automatically granted on the 60th day after its filing with the
Commission without any notification to the applicant unless the
Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be
automatically effective. For purposes of this section, an application
will be deemed filed on the date the Commission releases public notice
of the filing.
14. Such a process would set a threshold showing for a BOC to
withdraw an ONA service and allow ESPs an orderly notice and comment
process to object to the withdrawal. We seek comment on whether we
should permit BOCs to include multiple services in a single notice for
a particular geographic area. The process would also allow affected
ESPs the opportunity to address whether they would be unable to serve
customers without access to the service.
15. Because we propose to eliminate CEI and seek comment on
streamlining or eliminating ONA requirements, it is important for ESPs
to have sufficient detail to understand the impact of any possible
reduction in availability. BOCs should comment on what types of
transition arrangements might be possible to ensure that ESPs can still
serve their narrowband customers. We seek comment on whether BOCs would
continue to make CEI and ONA service offerings and network
functionalities available through alternative means, including through
the use of other tariffed services. Would they be available through a
transition to unbundled network elements or resold services? We seek
information from the BOCs on whether grandfathering arrangements would
be available based on existing prices, terms, and conditions. Should we
require BOCs to grandfather existing customers for a period of time
(e.g., three years), and if so, what would be an appropriate time
limit?
16. Non-BOC facilities-based common carriers must provide the basic
transmission services underlying their enhanced services on a
nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to tariffs under the All-Carrier Rule.
Computer II Final Decision, 77 FCC 2d at 474-75, para. 231. The rule
requires common carriers to provide basic transmission services at the
same prices, terms, and conditions to all ESPs, including themselves.
We seek comment on the extent to which ESPs continue to rely on these
tariffed transmission services to provide narrowband services to
customers and whether there are alternative providers available. In
particular, we seek comment on whether we should retain network access
requirements under the All-Carrier Rule beyond the time that CEI and
ONA may sunset. Would ESPs, including those offering certain services
such as alarm monitoring, continue to require access to incumbent LEC
networks in non-BOC territory because there are more limited
alternatives in those areas, or do cable, wireless, and VoIP platforms
offer ESPs viable alternatives? We also seek comment on whether the
incumbent carriers themselves continue to provide narrowband enhanced
services such that is important to retain the All-Carrier Rule to
prevent discriminatory conduct against unaffiliated ESPs.
Paperwork Reduction Act
17. This Further Notice seeks comment on a potential new or revised
information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any new
or revised information collection requirement, the Commission will
publish a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting the public
to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific
comment on how it might ``further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
18. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared
for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency
certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' 5 U.S.C.
601(6). The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C.
601(6). In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning
as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5
U.S.C. 601(3). A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA defines small
telecommunications entities as those with 1,500 or fewer
[[Page 39237]]
employees. 15 U.S.C. 632. This proceeding pertains to the BOCs, which,
because they would not be deemed a ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act and have more than 1,500 employees, do not qualify
as small entities under the RFA. Therefore, we certify that the
proposals in this Further Notice, if adopted, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
19. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including a copy
of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. This initial certification will also
be published in the Federal Register.
Ex Parte Presentations
20. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 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 themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Ordering Clauses
21. It is ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1, 2, 4, 11, 201-
205, 251, 272, 274-276, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 161, 201-205, 251, 272, 274-276,
and 303(r) this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket Nos.
95-20 and 98-10 is adopted.
22. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket Nos.
95-20 and 98-10, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15643 Filed 6-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P