Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11407 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus bodies. The 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This proposed 

rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. EPA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations. This proposed 

rule does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment because this rule 

proposes to authorize pre-existing State 

rules which are no less stringent than 

existing Federal requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: This notice is issued under the 

authority of Sections 2002(a), 7004(b), and 

9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), and 

6991c. 

Dated: February 23, 2011. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4640 Filed 3–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 51, 53, 63, 64 

[CC Docket Nos. 95–20, 98–10, WC Docket 

No. 10–132; FCC 11–15] 

Review of Wireline Competition Bureau 

Data Practices, Computer III Further 

Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating 

Company Provision of Enhanced 

Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes the removal of 

the narrowband comparably efficient 

interconnection (CEI) and open network 

architecture (ONA) reporting 

requirements that currently apply to the 

Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) due 

to a lack of continuing relevance and 

utility. The Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking continues the 

Commission’s examination of its data 

practices through the Data Innovation 

Initiative, including identification of 

data collections that can be eliminated 

without reducing the effectiveness of 

the Commission’s decision-making 

process. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 1, 2011 and reply comments are 

due on or before April 18, 2011. 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 May 

2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No.10–132, 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 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. 

In addition to filing comments with 

the Secretary, a copy of any comments 

on the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov 

and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via e-mail to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeremy Miller at (202) 418–1507, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry 

Analysis and Technology Division. For 

additional information concerning the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, send an e-mail to 

PRA@fcc.gov or contact Judith Boley 

Herman at 202–418–0214. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in CC 

Docket Nos. 95–20, 98–10 and WC 

Docket No. 10–132, adopted and 

released on February 8, 2011. The 

complete text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Comments and reply comments must 

include a short and concise summary of 

the substantive arguments raised in the 

pleading. Comments and reply 

comments must also comply with 

Section 1.49 and all other applicable 

Sections of the Commission’s rules. We 

direct all interested parties to include 

the name of the filing party and the date 

of the filing on each page of their 

comments and reply comments. All 

parties are encouraged to utilize a table 

of contents, regardless of the length of 

their submission. We also strongly 

encourage parties to track the 

organization set forth in the NPRM in 

order to facilitate our internal review 

process. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This document proposes to eliminate 

the remaining narrowband BOC-specific 

CEI and ONA reporting requirements, 

and seeks comment on this proposal. 

Subsequent reporting requirements 

related to the NPRM are not likely, and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
11408 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

if any reporting requirements are later 

adopted pursuant to this NPRM, it is too 

speculative at this time to request 

comment from the OMB or interested 

parties under Section 3507(d) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3507(d). Therefore, if the Commission 

determines that reporting is required, it 

will seek comment from the OMB and 

interested parties prior to any such 

requirements taking effect. Nevertheless, 

interested parties are encouraged to 

comment on whether the elimination of 

the BOC-specific CEI and ONA 

reporting requirements is necessary. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

we will seek specific comment on how 

we might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ Nevertheless, interested 

parties are encouraged to comment on 

whether elimination of the BOC-specific 

CEI and ONA reporting requirements is 

necessary. 

Synopsis of the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

I. Introduction 

1. In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, we continue the 

Commission’s examination of its data 

practices through the Data Innovation 

Initiative, including the identification of 

data collections that can be eliminated 

without reducing the effectiveness of 

our decision-making. In this proceeding, 

we propose the removal of the 

narrowband comparably efficient 

interconnection (CEI) and open network 

architecture (ONA) reporting 

requirements that currently apply to the 

Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) due 

to a lack of continuing relevance and 

utility, and we seek comment on that 

proposal. 

II. Background 

2. The Commission initiated its 

Computer Inquiry proceedings more 

than 40 years ago, and imposed CEI and 

ONA obligations in the Computer III 

proceedings over 20 years ago. The 

Commission has described the origins 

and development of those dockets 

elsewhere in detail. The Commission 

adopted comparably efficient 

interconnection (CEI), open network 

architecture (ONA), and other 

nonstructural requirements as 

alternatives to the Computer II 

structural separation requirements for 

the BOCs. 

3. A BOC that complies with the CEI 

obligations may offer enhanced services 

on an integrated basis so long as (i) the 

BOC’s enhanced services operations 

take under tariff the basic services it 

uses in offering enhanced services and 

(ii) the basic services are made available 

to other enhanced service providers and 

users under the same tariffs on an 

unbundled and functionally equal basis. 

In addition, the BOC may not 

discriminate in favor of its own 

enhanced services operations in 

providing CEI and must file reports to 

substantiate that nondiscrimination. 

BOCs also must post service-specific 

CEI plans on the Internet (i.e., one CEI 

plan per service or group of services) 

that describe and demonstrate how a 

BOC is providing unaffiliated enhanced 

service providers with equal access to 

its basic services by its compliance with 

nine CEI parameters. 

4. Unlike CEI plans, ONA plans apply 

to enhanced services generally and 

impose more specific and 

comprehensive unbundling 

requirements on the BOCs, not unlike 

Section 251’s facilities unbundling 

obligations. Through ONA, BOCs must 

separate key components of their basic 

services into ‘‘basic service elements,’’ 

and make those components, or 

building blocks, available to unaffiliated 

enhanced service providers to build 

new services regardless of whether the 

BOC’s affiliated enhanced services 

operations use these unbundled 

components. In refining its rules for 

filing ONA plans, the Commission 

subsequently categorized the BOCs’ 

‘‘basic service elements’’ into four 

groups, which the BOCs are required to 

make available to information services 

providers. In a subsequent order, the 

Commission also determined that 

certain operations support systems 

(OSS) capabilities—namely service 

order entry and status; trouble reporting 

and status; diagnostics, monitoring, 

testing, and network reconfiguration; 

and traffic data collection—are ONA 

services under the Commission’s ONA 

rules. Finally, the ONA rules contain 

certain procedural requirements 

governing the amendment of ONA 

plans. These procedures allow 

information service providers to request 

and receive new ONA services and 

impose various annual, semi-annual, 

and quarterly reporting requirements. 

5. As part of its 1998 Biennial Review, 

the Commission sought comment on the 

interplay between the safeguards and 

terminology established in the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 and 

the Computer III regime, including the 

continued application of the Computer 

III safeguards to BOC provision of 

enhanced services. In 2001, the 

Common Carrier Bureau invited parties 

to update and refresh the record in these 

proceedings, 66 FR 1506, March 15, 

2001. 

6. In 2005, the Commission relieved 

the BOCs from CEI and ONA obligations 

with respect to wireline broadband 

Internet access services offered by 

facilities-based providers in the 

Wireline Broadband Internet Access 

Services Order, 70 FR 60222, October 

17, 2005. In 2006, Verizon obtained 

additional relief from Computer Inquiry 

requirements when its petition for 

forbearance regarding enterprise 

broadband services was deemed granted 

by operation of law without a vote by 

the Commission, pursuant to Section 10 

of the Act. In 2007, the Commission 

forbore from applying the Computer III 

and other BOC-specific Computer 

Inquiry rules to any of AT&T’s 

broadband information services to 

provide AT&T parity with Verizon. The 

Commission concluded, among other 

things, that application of the Computer 

III CEI and ONA requirements 

unnecessarily constrains how AT&T 

may offer its broadband transmission 

services to its enterprise customers, and 

that removal would promote 

competitive market conditions by 

increasing the competitive pressure on 

all enterprise service providers. The 

Commission subsequently extended the 

same relief to Qwest. 

7. In 2010, as part of the agency’s 

reform agenda to improve its fact-based, 

data-driven decision making, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

initiated an examination of its data 

practices to improve the way the 

Commission collects, uses and 

disseminates data. The Bureau solicited 

and received recommendations with 

regard to four issues: (1) The utility and 

rationale for each of its existing data 

collections; (2) additional data that 

commenters believe the Bureau needs to 

inform Commission policymaking 

activities; (3) how it may improve 

collection and analysis processes for 

existing collections; and (4) how it may 

improve dissemination of reports and 

analyses it produces. 

III. Discussion 

8. We propose to eliminate the 

remaining narrowband BOC-specific CEI 

and ONA reporting requirements, and 

seek comment on this proposal. In its 

comments, Verizon asserts that these 

obligations can increase the BOCs’ costs 

of providing information services, and 

that there is no reason for any of these 

requirements to continue. AT&T asks 

the Bureau to determine whether the 

benefits of the data collected outweigh 

the burdens associated with its 

collection, and seeks the elimination of 

these requirements. No commenter or 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11409 

reply commenter in this docket argues 

for the retention of any of the BOCspecific CEI and ONA reporting 

requirements. 

9. The record supports this proposal. 

No commenter to the WCB Data 

Innovation Initiative Public Notice has 

identified any utility to any service 

provider for the reports and filings that 

BOCs must generate to comply with CEI 

and ONA, and since the Commission 

does not rely on any of these 

submissions in the course of its decision 

making, we propose elimination of these 

remaining Computer III requirements. 

Further, in both the 2006 and 2008 

Biennial Review proceedings, where the 

BOCs sought elimination of the CEI and 

ONA reporting requirements pursuant 

to Section 11 of the Act, no commenter 

voiced any opposition to their 

elimination or advocated in support of 

their continued application. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Presentations 

10. This proceeding 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. 

B. Comment Filing Procedures 

11. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415 and 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 and WC Docket No. 10–132. 

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. 

• 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 

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. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street, SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

• 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 e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (tty). 

12. Parties should send a copy of each 

filing to the Competition Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554, or by e-mail to 

CPDcopies@fcc.gov. Parties shall also 

serve one copy with the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, (202) 488–5300, or via e-mail to 

fcc@bcpiweb.com. 

13. Filings and comments will be 

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. 

They may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202) 

488–5300, fax: (202) 488–5563, or via email http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

14. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 201– 

205, 251, 271, 272, 274–276, and 303(r) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 160, 

161, 201–205, 251, 271, 272, 274–276, 

and 303(r) the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is adopted. 

15. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

16. 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.’’ The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ 

as having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term ‘‘small 

business concern’’ under the Small 

Business Act. A ‘‘small business 

concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). SBA defines 

small telecommunications entities as 

those with 1,500 or fewer employees. 

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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

if adopted, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

17. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

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. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4642 Filed 3–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS