Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 93 / Thursday, May 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27623 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify this document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. Follow the 

detailed instructions as provided under 

ADDRESSES. Respond to specific 

questions posed by the Agency. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced by the 

Agency and others. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified in this document. 

II. Background 

In the Federal Register of April 22, 

2008 (73 FR 21692) (FRL–8355–7), EPA 

published the Lead-Based Paint 

Renovation, Repair and Painting rule, 

which requires contractors to use leadsafe work practices during renovation, 

repair, and painting activities that 

disturb lead-based paint in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities 

built before 1978 unless a determination 

can be made that no lead-based paint 

would be disturbed during the 

renovation or repair. The use of an EPArecognized lead test kit, when used by 

a trained professional, can reliably 

determine that regulated lead-based 

paint is not present by virtue of a 

negative result. The federal standards 

for lead-based paint in target housing 

and child-occupied facilities is a lead 

content in paint that equals or exceeds 

a level of 1.0 milligram per square 

centimeter (mg/cm2) or 0.5 percent by 

weight. If regulated lead-based paint is 

not present, there is no requirement to 

employ lead-safe work practices under 

the RRP rule. 

The RRP rule established negativeresponse and positive-response criteria 

outlined in 40 CFR 745.88(c) for lead 

test kits recognized by EPA. Lead test 

kits recognized before September 1, 

2010 must meet only the negativeresponse criterion outlined in 40 CFR 

745.88(c)(1). The negative-response 

criterion states that for paint containing 

lead at or above the regulated level, 1.0 

mg/cm2 or 0.5 percent by weight, a 

demonstrated probability (with 95% 

confidence) of a negative response less 

than or equal to 5 percent of the time 

must be met. The recognition of kits that 

meet only this criterion will last until 

EPA publicizes its recognition of the 

first test kit that meets both of the 

criteria outlined in the rule. 

Lead test kits recognized after 

September 1, 2010 must meet both the 

negative-response and positive-response 

criteria outlined in 40 CFR 745.88(c)(1)– 

(2). The positive-response criterion 

states that for paint containing lead 

below the regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2 or 

0.5% by weight, a demonstrated 

probability (with 95% confidence) of a 

positive response less than or equal to 

10% of the time must be met. 

Qualitatively speaking, lead test kits 

recognized by EPA should also serve as 

a quick, inexpensive, reliable, and easy 

to perform option for lead-based paint 

testing in the field. 

Despite the EPA’s commitment of 

resources to this effort, to date no test 

kit has met both of the performance 

criteria outlined in the RRP rule. 

However, there are two EPA-recognized 

test kits commercially available 

nationwide that meet the false-negative 

criterion and continue to be recognized 

by EPA. Therefore, in an effort to 

understand the current state of the 

science for lead test kits and lead-based 

paint field testing alternatives, as well 

as the existing market and potential 

availability of additional test kits, EPA 

is soliciting input from relevant 

stakeholders. EPA is convening a 

meeting and webinar for interested 

stakeholders and the public on 

Thursday, June 4, 2015 to seek 

information related to: (1) The existing 

market for lead test kits as referenced in 

the 2008 RRP rule; (2) the development 

or modification of lead test kit(s) that 

may meet EPA’s positive-response 

criterion (in addition to the negativeresponse criterion); and (3) other 

alternatives for lead-based paint field 

testing. EPA will provide further 

information regarding topics to be 

discussed at the meeting in an 

Information Document to be posted on 

www2.epa.gov/lead and placed in the 

docket for this action. Meeting 

participants and other interested parties 

who wish to respond in writing to the 

requested lead test kit topics outlined 

above, as well as the forthcoming 

Information Docket, may submit written 

materials to the docket until July 6, 

2015. 

III. References 

As indicated under ADDRESSES, a 

docket has been established for this 

rulemaking under docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. The docket 

includes this document and other 

information. 

EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Final Rule. Federal Register, 

April 22, 2008 (73 FR 21692) (FRL– 

8355–7). 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. 

Dated: May 8, 2015. 

James Jones, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11669 Filed 5–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

43 CFR Part 2 

[156D0102DM/DS10700000/

DMSN00000.000000/DX.10701.CEN00000] 

RIN 1090–AB10 

Privacy Act Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Interior is proposing to amend its 

regulations to exempt certain records in 

the Indian Arts and Crafts Board system 

of records from one or more provisions 

of the Privacy Act because of criminal, 

civil, and administrative law 

enforcement requirements. 

DATES: Submit written comments on or 

before July 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments, 

identified by RIN number 1090–AB10, 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Teri Barnett, Departmental 

Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 

5547 MIB, Washington, DC 20240. 

• Email: Teri Barnett, Departmental 

Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Privacy@ios.doi.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teri 

Barnett, Departmental Privacy Officer, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C 

Street NW., Mail Stop 5547 MIB, 

Washington, DC 20240. Email at 

Privacy@ios.doi.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27624 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 93 / Thursday, May 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Background 

The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 

5 U.S.C. 552a, governs the means by 

which the U.S. Government collects, 

maintains, uses and disseminates 

personally identifiable information. The 

Privacy Act applies to records about 

individuals that are maintained in a 

‘‘system of records.’’ A system of 

records is a group of any records under 

the control of an agency from which 

information about an individual is 

retrieved by the name of the individual 

or by some identifying number, symbol, 

or other identifying particular assigned 

to the individual. See 5 U.S.C. 

552a(a)(4) and (5). 

An individual may request access to 

records containing information about 

him or herself, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), (c) and 

(d). However, the Privacy Act authorizes 

Federal agencies to exempt systems of 

records from access by individuals 

under certain circumstances, such as 

where the access or disclosure of such 

information would impede national 

security or law enforcement efforts. 

Exemptions from Privacy Act provisions 

must be established by regulation, 5 

U.S.C. 552a(k). 

The Department of the Interior (DOI), 

Office of the Secretary, created the 

Indian Arts and Crafts Board, DOI–24, 

system of records to assist the 

Department of the Interior’s Indian Arts 

and Crafts Board (IACB) in overseeing 

the implementation of the Indian Arts 

and Crafts Act of 1990, as amended. The 

purposes of this system of records 

include documenting investigations, 

including investigations by DOI law 

enforcement, of individuals or 

organizations that offer or display for 

sale or sell any good, with or without a 

Government trademark, in a manner 

that falsely suggests it is Indian 

produced, an Indian product, or the 

product of a particular Indian or Indian 

tribe or Indian arts and crafts 

organization within the United States. 

Additionally, the system helps the IACB 

manage its program activities, promote 

the economic development of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives of Federally 

recognized tribes through the expansion 

of the Indian arts and crafts market; 

provide promotional opportunities, 

general business advice, and 

information on the Indian Arts and 

Crafts Act to Native American artists, 

craftspeople, businesses, museums, and 

cultural centers of Federally recognized 

tribes; manage museum exhibitions and 

activities; and produce a source 

directory of American Indian and 

Alaska Native owned and operated arts 

and crafts businesses. 

In this notice of proposed rulemaking, 

the Department of the Interior is 

proposing to exempt the Indian Arts and 

Crafts Board system of records from 

certain provisions of the Privacy Act 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) because 

of criminal, civil, and administrative 

law enforcement requirements. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the head of 

a Federal agency may promulgate rules 

to exempt a system of records from 

certain provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a if the 

system of records is ‘‘investigatory 

material compiled for law enforcement 

purposes 

Because this system of records 

contains investigatory material 

compiled for law enforcement purposes 

within the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2), the Department of the 

Interior proposes to exempt the Indian 

Arts and Crafts Board system of records 

from the following provisions: 5 U.S.C. 

552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1),(e)(4)(G) through 

(e)(4)(I), and (f). Where a release would 

not interfere with or adversely affect law 

enforcement activities, including but 

not limited to revealing sensitive 

information or compromising 

confidential sources, the exemption may 

be waived on a case-by-case basis. 

Exemptions from these particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

1. 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3). This section 

requires an agency to make the 

accounting of each disclosure of records 

required by the Privacy Act available 

upon request to the individual named in 

the record. Release of the accounting of 

disclosures could alert the subjects of an 

investigation to the existence of the 

investigation and the fact that they are 

subjects of the investigation. The release 

of such information to the subjects of an 

investigation would provide them with 

significant information concerning the 

nature of the investigation, and could 

seriously impede or compromise the 

investigation; endanger the physical 

safety of confidential sources, witnesses 

and their families; and lead to the 

improper influencing of witnesses, the 

destruction of evidence, or the 

fabrication of testimony. 

2. 5 U.S.C. 552a(d); (e)(4)(G) and 

(e)(4)(H); and (f). These sections require 

an agency to provide notice and 

disclosure to individuals that a system 

contains records pertaining to the 

individual, as well as providing rights of 

access and amendment. Granting access 

to investigatory records in the Indian 

Arts and Crafts Board system of records 

could inform the subject of an 

investigation of the existence of that 

investigation, the nature and scope of 

the information and evidence obtained, 

the identity of confidential sources, 

witnesses, and law enforcement 

personnel, and could provide 

information to enable the subject to 

avoid detection or apprehension. 

Granting access to such information 

could seriously impede or compromise 

an investigation; endanger the physical 

safety of confidential sources, witnesses, 

and law enforcement personnel, as well 

as their families; lead to the improper 

influencing of witnesses, the destruction 

of evidence, or the fabrication of 

testimony; and disclose investigative 

techniques and procedures. In addition, 

granting access to such information 

could disclose security-sensitive, or 

confidential information and could 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

the personal privacy of others. 

3. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1). This section 

requires the agency to maintain 

information about an individual only to 

the extent that such information is 

relevant or necessary. The application of 

this provision could impair 

investigations and law enforcement, 

because it is not always possible to 

determine the relevance or necessity of 

specific information in the early stages 

of an investigation. Relevance and 

necessity are often questions of 

judgment and timing, and it is often 

only after the information is evaluated 

that the relevance and necessity of such 

information can be established. In 

addition, during the course of the 

investigation, the investigator may 

obtain information which is incidental 

to the main purpose of the investigation, 

but which may relate to matters under 

the investigative jurisdiction of another 

agency. Such information cannot always 

be readily segregated. Furthermore, 

during the course of the investigation, 

an investigator may obtain information 

concerning the violation of laws outside 

the scope of the investigator’s 

jurisdiction. In the interest of effective 

law enforcement, DOI investigators 

should retain this information, since it 

could aid in establishing patterns of 

criminal activity and provide valuable 

leads for other law enforcement 

agencies. 

4. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I). This section 

requires an agency to provide public 

notice of the categories of sources of 

records in the system. To the extent this 

provision is construed to require more 

detailed disclosure than the broad, 

generic information currently published 

in the systems of records notice, an 

exemption from this provision is 

necessary to protect the confidentiality 

of sources of information, and to protect 

the privacy and physical safety of 

witnesses and informants. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 93 / Thursday, May 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27625 

Procedural Requirements 

1. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 

12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not a significant rule and has not 

reviewed it under the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866. We have 

evaluated the impacts of the rule as 

required by E.O. 12866 and have 

determined that it does not meet the 

criteria for a significant regulatory 

action. The results of our evaluation are 

given below. 

(a) This rule will not have an annual 

effect of $100 million or more on the 

economy. It will not adversely affect in 

a material way the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities. 

(b) This rule would not create a 

serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency. 

(c) This rule does not alter the 

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 

user fees, concessions, loan programs, 

water contracts, management 

agreements, or the rights and obligations 

of their recipients. 

(d) This rule does not raise any novel 

legal or policy issues. 

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this document will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.). This rule does not 

impose a requirement for small 

businesses to report or keep records on 

any of the requirements contained in 

this rule. The exemptions to the Privacy 

Act apply to individuals, and 

individuals are not covered entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

3. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: 

(a) Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

(b) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. 

(c) Does not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

on the private sector, of more than $100 

million per year. The rule does not have 

a significant or unique effect on State, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. This rule makes only 

minor changes to 43 CFR part 2. A 

statement containing the information 

required by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not 

required. 

5. Takings (E.O. 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the rule does not have significant 

takings implications. This rule makes 

only minor changes to 43 CFR part 2. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. 

6. Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, this rule does not have any 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

The rule is not associated with, nor will 

it have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. A Federalism 

Assessment is not required. 

7. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

This rule complies with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12988. 

Specifically, this rule: 

(a) Does not unduly burden the 

judicial system. 

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) 

requiring that all regulations be 

reviewed to eliminate errors and 

ambiguity and be written to minimize 

litigation; and 

(c) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) 

requiring that all regulations be written 

in clear language and contain clear legal 

standards. 

8. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 

13175) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, the Department of the Interior 

has evaluated this rule and determined 

that it would have no substantial effects 

on Federally recognized Indian tribes. 

9. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not require an 

information collection from 10 or more 

parties and a submission under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act is not 

required. 

10. National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not constitute a major 

Federal action and would not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Therefore, this 

rule does not require the preparation of 

an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement under 

the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

11. Data Quality Act 

In developing this rule, there was no 

need to conduct or use a study, 

experiment, or survey requiring peer 

review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. 

L. 106–554). 

12. Effects on Energy Supply (E.O. 

13211). 

This rule is not a significant energy 

action under the definition in Executive 

Order 13211. A Statement of Energy 

Effects is not required. 

13. Clarity of This Regulation 

We are required by Executive Order 

12866 and 12988, the Plain Writing Act 

of 2010 (H.R. 946), and the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

each rule we publish must: 

—Be logically organized; 

—Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

—Use clear language rather than jargon; 

—Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

—Use lists and table wherever possible. 

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential information, 

Courts, Freedom of Information Act, 

Privacy Act. 

Dated: April 15, 2015. 

Kristen J. Sarri, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Policy, Management and Budget. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of the Interior 

proposes to amend 43 CFR part 2 as 

follows: 

PART 2—FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 

ACT; RECORDS AND TESTIMONY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 31 

U.S.C. 3717; 43 U.S.C. 1460, 1461. 

■ 2. Amend § 2.254 by adding paragraph 

(b)(17) to read as follows: 

§ 2.254 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27626 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 93 / Thursday, May 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(17) Indian Arts and Crafts Board, 

DOI–24. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–11686 Filed 5–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4334–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WC Docket No. 07–245, GN Docket No. 09– 

51; DA 15–542] 

Parties Asked To Refresh Record 

Regarding Petition to Reconsideration 

Cost Allocators Used To Calculate the 

Telecom Rate for Pole Attachments 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

seeks to refresh the record on a petition 

for reconsideration or clarification filed 

by the National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association 

(NCTA), COMPTEL, and tw telecom inc. 

(Petitioners) in the above-referenced 

proceedings. Petitioners request that 

‘‘the rules be clarified or amended by 

specifying [that] the cost allocator to be 

applied [will be] based on the number 

of attaching entities.’’ 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

June 4, 2015 and reply comments are 

due on or before June 15, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 07–245 

and GN Docket No. 09–51, by any of the 

following methods: 

• 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: 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: 

Jonathan Reel, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Competition Policy Division, 

(202) 418–0637, or send an email to 

johnathan.reel@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document in WC Docket No. 07–245, 

GN Docket Nos. 09–51; DA 15–542 

released on May 6, 2015. It is available 

on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

I. Public Notice 

1. By this document, the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks to 

refresh the record on a petition for 

reconsideration or clarification filed by 

the National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association 

(NCTA), COMPTEL, and tw telecom inc. 

(Petitioners) on June 8, 2011 in the 

above-referenced proceedings. 

2. With respect to the rule concerning 

the calculation of pole attachment rates 

charged to telecommunications 

providers pursuant to section 224(e) of 

the Communications Act, Petitioners 

request that ‘‘the rules be clarified or 

amended by specifying [that] the cost 

allocator to be applied [will be] based 

on the number of attaching entities.’’ In 

support of this request, Petitioners state 

that, in the 2011 Pole Attachment Order, 

‘‘the new formula adjusts the cost basis 

to 66 percent in urban service areas and 

to 44 percent in rural service areas. 

When paired with the presumptions 

that there are five entities on urban 

poles and three entities on rural poles, 

the illustrative calculation almost 

exactly equals the cable rate.’’ 

Petitioners assert, however, that as 

written the rule may be read to address 

only the cases of the presumed three 

and five attaching entities. Therefore, 

Petitioners request that the Commission 

clarify or expand the telecom rate 

formula to ‘‘provide the corresponding 

cost adjustments scaled to other entity 

counts.’’ Petitioners request, 

alternatively, that ‘‘the Commission 

could adopt the proposal in the 2010 

Pole Attachment FNPRM to establish 

the maximum just and reasonable rate 

as the higher of the cable rate . . . or the 

‘lower bound’ telecom rate obtained by 

excluding capital costs from the 

definition of ‘cost of providing space’ in 

the existing telecom rate formula.’’ 

3. A Public Notice released on June 

20, 2011 announced the comment cycle 

for the Petition. The Commission 

subsequently published that document 

A National Broadband Plan For Our 

Future; Petition for Reconsideration, 76 

FR 44495, July 26, 2011. The 

Commission received comment both for 

and against the Petition. 

4. After the close of the comment 

cycle concerning the Petition, on 

February 26, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld the 

2011 Pole Attachment Order, including 

the Commission’s rule for calculating 

the pole attachment rate for providers of 

telecommunications services. Among 

other things, the Court determined that 

the term ‘‘cost,’’ as used in section 

224(e), is open to a wide range of 

reasonable interpretations; that the 

Commission’s methodology for 

apportioning ‘‘cost’’ among pole 

attaches for purposes of the telecom rate 

is consistent with section 224(e); and 

that the Commission’s justifications for 

its decision concerning the telecom rate 

were reasonable. In addition, the 

Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order 

discussed the concern raised in the 

Petition regarding consequences to the 

goals of the 2011 Pole Attachment Order 

if the cost allocation rule were 

interpreted to apply fully only in 

instances where there are three and five 

attaching entities. With regard to any 

possible adverse effect on investment 

incentives from such an interpretation, 

the Open Internet Order stated that the 

Commission would be ‘‘concerned by 

any potential undermining of the gains 

the Commission achieved by revising 

the pole attachment rates paid by 

telecommunications carriers’’ in 2011 

and accordingly would be ‘‘monitoring 

marketplace developments . . . and can 

and will promptly take further action in 

that regard if warranted.’’ Given the 

time that has elapsed since the filing 

and original comment cycle on the 

NCTA Petition, as well as the 

subsequent events discussed above, we 

seek to ensure that the record reflects 

current viewpoints on the issues raised 

in the NCTA Petition. 

II. Procedural Matters 

A. Accessible Formats 

5. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

Contact the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations for filing comments 

(accessible format documents, sign 

language interpreters, CARTS, etc.) by 

email: FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

B. Filing Requirements 

6. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding 

continues to be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS