Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 45611

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

# Depth in feet above

ground. *Elevation in

feet. (NGVD)

Existing Modified

Just downstream of Monterey Highway ... *314 *316

Calabazas Creek .............. Approximately 600 feet downstream of

Prospect Road.

*290 *290

Just downstream of Prospect Road ......... *300 *297

Middle Avenue Overflow

(from West Little Llagas

Creek).

At confluence with Llagas Creek just

north of San Martin Avenue.

None *283

At intersection of Middle and Murphy

Avenues.

#1 *305

West Branch Llagas

Creek-Upper Split.

Approximately 1,000 feet west of Coolidge Avenue.None *278

At Harding Avenue, 500 feet north of

intersection with Highland Avenue.

None *267

Uvas Creek (South Split) Just north of Bloomfield Avenue between

Monterey Highway and the Southern

Pacific Railroad.

None *166

Approximately 3,000 feet north of Bloomfield Avenue between Monterey Highway and the Southern Pacific Railroad.None *179

Maps are available for inspection at the Santa Clara County Department of Land Use and Development, Central Permit Office, 70 West

Hedding Street, San Jose, California.

Send comments to The Honorable Ron Gonzales, Chairperson, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, 70 West Hedding Street, Tenth

Floor, San Jose, California 95110.

Louisiana ................ Calcasieu Parish

(Unincorporated

Areas).

Belfield Lateral .................. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of

Joe Miller Road.

At the intersection of Stafford and Park

Roads.

*23

*23

*24

*24

Maps are available for inspection at 1015 Pithon Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana.

Send comments to The Honorable Allen August, Parish President, Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, 1015 Pithon Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana

70602.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Dated: August 15, 1997.

Michael J. Armstrong,

Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 97–22943 Filed 8–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 51

[CC Docket No. 96–98, FCC 97–295]

Implementation of the Local

Competition Provisions in the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is issuing

this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (Further NPRM) seeking

comment on whether requesting carriers

may use unbundled shared transport

facilities in conjunction with unbundled

switching, to originate or terminate

interexchange traffic to customers to

whom the requesting carrier does not

provide local exchange service. We also

seek comment on whether similar use

restrictions may apply to the use of

unbundled dedicated transport

facilities. The Commission’s goal is to

increase competition in the local

exchange and exchange access market.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

October 2, 1997 and Reply Comments

are due on or before October 17, 1997.

Written comments by the public on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections are due October 2, 1997.

Written comments must be submitted by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) on the proposed and/or modified

information collections on or before

October 27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to Office of

the Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street NW., Room

222, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy

to Janice Myles of the Common Carrier

Bureau, 1919 M Street NW., Room 544,

Washington, DC 20554. Parties should

also file one copy of any documents

filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th St. NW., Washington, DC

20036. In addition to filing comments

with the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street NW., Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov, and to Timothy Fain,

OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503

or via the Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kalpak Gude, Attorney, Common

Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program

Planning Division, (202) 418–1580. For

additional information concerning the

information collections contained in

this Further NPRM contact Dorothy

Conway at (202) 418–0217, or via the

Internet at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted

and released August 18, 1997 (FCC 97–

295). The full text of this Further NPRM

is available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, 1919 M St. NW.,

Room 239, Washington, DC. The

complete text also may be obtained

through the World Wide Web, at http:/

/www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common
45612 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Carrier/Orders/fcc97295.wp, or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

I. Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

A. Discussion

1. In the Local Competition Order (61

FR 45476 (August 29, 1996)), we did not

condition use of network elements on

the requesting carrier’s provision of

local exchange service to the end-user

customer. We recognized, however, that,

as a practical matter, a requesting carrier

using certain network elements would

be unlikely to obtain customers unless

it offered local exchange service as well

as exchange access service over those

network elements. In particular, we

found that local loops are dedicated to

the premises of a particular customer.

Therefore, we stated that a requesting

carrier would need to provide all

services requested by the customer to

whom the local loops are dedicated, and

that, as a practical matter, requesting

carriers usually would need to provide

local exchange service over any

unbundled local loops that it purchases

under section 251(c)(3). We similarly

held in our Order on Reconsideration

(61 FR 52706 (October 8, 1996)) that the

unbundled switch, as defined in the

Local Competition Order, includes the

line card, which is typically dedicated

to a particular customer. We concluded

that:

Thus, a carrier that purchases the

unbundled switching element to serve an end

user effectively obtains the exclusive right to

provide all features, functions, and

capabilities of the switch, including

switching for exchange access and local

exchange service, for that end user. A

practical consequence of this determination

is that the carrier that purchases the local

switching element is likely to provide all

available services requested by the customer

served by that switching element, including

switching for local exchange and exchange

access.

2. Neither of the petitions for

reconsideration expressly asked the

Commission to determine whether

requesting carriers may purchase shared

transport facilities under section

251(c)(3) of the Act to originate or

terminate interexchange traffic to

customers to whom the requesting

carrier does not provide local exchange

service. Moreover, the oppositions and

replies to the two petitions for

reconsideration, as well as the ex partes,

focused on the issue of whether

requesting carriers may use unbundled

shared transport facilities, in

conjunction with unbundled switching,

to compete in the local exchange

market. In fact, the issue of whether

requesting carriers may purchase

unbundled shared transport facilities to

originate or terminate interexchange

traffic to customers to whom the

requesting carrier does not provide local

exchange service was specifically

addressed only in two recent ex parte

submissions. In order to develop a

complete record on this issue, we issue

this further notice of proposed

rulemaking specifically asking whether

requesting carriers may use unbundled

dedicated or shared transport facilities

in conjunction with unbundled

switching, to originate or terminate

interstate toll traffic to customers to

whom the requesting carrier does not

provide local exchange service. Absent

restrictions requiring carriers to provide

local exchange service in order to

purchase unbundled shared or

dedicated transport facilities, an IXC, for

example, could request shared or

dedicated transport under section

251(c)(3) for purposes of carrying

originating interstate toll traffic between

an incumbent LEC’s end office and the

IXC’s point of presence (POP). Likewise,

an IXC could request such transport

network elements for purposes of

terminating interstate toll traffic from its

POP to an incumbent LEC’s end office.

Parties that advocate the use of transport

network elements for the transmission

of such access traffic should address

whether that approach is consistent

with our Order on Reconsideration

regarding the use of the unbundled local

switching element to provide interstate

access service as well as recent

appellate court decisions interpreting

section 251(c)(2) and (3). Parties that

advocate restricting the use of transport

network elements should address

whether such restrictions are consistent

with section 251(c)(3) of the Act, which

requires an incumbent LEC to provide

access to unbundled network elements

‘‘for the provision of a

telecommunications service.’’ Moreover,

those parties should also address the

technical feasibility of requiring an IXC

to identify terminating toll traffic that is

destined for customers that are not local

exchange customers of the incumbent

LEC.

B. Procedural Matters

1. Ex Parte Presentations

3. This Further NPRM is a permit-butdisclose notice-and-comment

rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte

presentations are permitted, in

accordance with the Commission’s

rules, provided that they are disclosed

as required.

2. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

4. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared this present Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the expected significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in the Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further

NPRM). Written public comments are

requested on the IRFA. These comments

must be filed by the deadlines for

comment on the remainder of the

Further Notice, and should have a

separate and distinct heading

designating them as responses to the

IRFA. The Commission will send a copy

of the Further NPRM, including the

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration

(SBA) in accordance with the RFA, 5

U.S.C. § 603(a).

5. Need for and Objectives of the

Proposed Rules. We seek comment on

whether requesting carriers may use

unbundled shared transport facilities in

conjunction with unbundled switching,

to originate or terminate interexchange

traffic to customers to whom the

requesting carrier does not provide local

exchange service. We also seek

comment on whether similar use

restrictions may apply to the use of

unbundled dedicated transport

facilities. We propose no new rules at

this time. In light of comments received

in response to the Further NPRM, we

might issue new rules.

6. Legal Basis. The legal basis for any

action that may be taken pursuant to the

Further Notice is contained in Sections

1, 2, 4, 201, 202, 274, and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154,

201, 202, 274, and 303(r).

7. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities That May Be

Affected by the Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking. In determining

the small entities affected by our Further

NPRM for purposes of this

Supplemental FRFA, we adopt the

analysis and definitions set forth in the

FRFA in our First Report and Order (61

FR 45476 (August 29, 1996)). The RFA

directs the Commission to provide a

description of and, where feasible, an

estimate of the number of small entities

that might be affected by proposed

rules. The RFA defines the term ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small business

concern’’ under Section 3 of the Small

Business Act. A small business concern
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 45613

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 SBA. The SBA has

defined a small business for Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) categories

4812 (Radiotelephone Communications)

and 4813 (Telephone Communications,

Except Radiotelephone) to be an entity

with no more than 1,500 employees.

Consistent with our FRFA and prior

practice, we here exclude small

incumbent local exchange carriers

(LECs) from the definition of ‘‘small

entity’’ and ‘‘small business concern.’’

While such a company may have 1,500

or fewer employees and thus fall within

the SBA’s definition of a small

telecommunications entity, such

companies are either dominant in their

field of operations or are not

independently owned and operated. Out

of an abundance of caution, however,

for regulatory flexibility analysis

purposes, we will consider small

incumbent LECs within this present

analysis and use the term ‘‘small

incumbent LECs’’ to refer to any

incumbent LEC that arguably might be

defined by SBA as a small business

concern.

8. In addition, for purposes of this

IRFA, we adopt the FRFA estimates of

the numbers of telephone companies,

incumbent LECs, and competitive

access providers (CAPs) that might be

affected by the First Report and Order.

In the FRFA, we determined that it was

reasonable to conclude that fewer than

3,497 telephone service firms are small

entity telephone service firms or small

incumbent LECs that might be affected.

We further estimated that there are

fewer than 1,347 small incumbent LECs

that might be affected. Finally, we

estimated that there are fewer than 30

small entity CAPs that might qualify as

small business concerns.

9. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance

Requirements. It is probable that any

rules issued pursuant to the Further

NPRM would not change the projected

reporting, recordkeeping, or other

compliance requirements already

adopted in this proceeding.

10. Steps Taken to Minimize

Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities, and Alternatives Considered.

As stated in our FRFA, we determined

that our decision to establish minimum

national requirements for unbundled

elements would likely facilitate

negotiations and reduce regulatory

burdens and uncertainty for all parties,

including small entities and small

incumbent LECs. National requirements

for unbundling may allow new entrants,

including small entities, to take

advantage of economies of scale in

network design, which may minimize

the economic impact of our decision in

the First Report and Order. This finding

has not been challenged. We do not

believe that any rules that may be issued

pursuant to the Further NPRM will

change this finding. We seek comment

on this tentative conclusion.

11. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed

Rules. None.

3. Comment Filing Procedures

12. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415,

1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before October 2, 1997,

and reply comments on or before

October 17, 1997. To file formally in

this proceeding, you must file an

original and six copies of all comments,

reply comments, and supporting

comments. If you want each

Commissioner to receive a personal

copy of your comments, you must file

an original and eleven copies.

Comments and reply comments should

be sent to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, N.W., Room 222,

Washington, D.C., 20554, with a copy to

Janice Myles of the Common Carrier

Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 544,

Washington, D.C., 20554. Parties should

also file one copy of any documents

filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., 20036. Comments

and reply comments will be available

for public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239,

Washington, D.C., 20554.

13. 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

§ 1.49 and all other applicable sections

of the Commission’s Rules. We also

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.

14. Parties are also asked to submit

comments and reply comments on

diskette. Such diskette submissions

would be in addition to, and not a

substitute for, the formal filing

requirements addressed above. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit

them to Janice Myles of the Common

Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Room 544, Washington, D.C., 20554.

Such a submission should be on a 3.5

inch diskette formatted in an IBM

compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and

WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette

should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labelled with the party’s name,

proceeding, type of pleading (comment

or reply comments) and date of

submission. The diskette should be

accompanied by a cover letter.

15. In addition to filing comments

with the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C., 20554, or via the Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov, and to Timothy Fain,

OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725—

17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,

20503 or via the Internet to

fainlt@al.eop.gov.

II. Ordering Clauses

16. It is further ordered, that the

Commission shall send a copy of this

Third Order on Reconsideration and

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including the associated Supplemental

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

and Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration.

17. It is further ordered that pursuant

to sections 1, 2, 4, 201, 202, 274 and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,

152, 154, 201, 202, 274, and 303(r), the

further notice of proposed rulemaking is

adopted.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51

Communications common carriers,

Network elements, Transport and

termination.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–22733 Filed 8–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P