Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8417

not an affirmative written request, before a

carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to

CPNI, must a BOC disclose CPNI to

unaffiliated electronic publishers under the

same standard for customer approval as is

permitted in connection with its section 274

separated affiliate, electronic publishing joint

venture, or affiliate under section

274(c)(2)(A)? If, for example, a BOC may

disclose CPNI to its section 274 separated

affiliate pursuant to the customer’s oral or

opt-out approval, is the BOC required to

disclose CPNI to unaffiliated entities upon

the customer’s approval pursuant to the same

method?

(ii). Section 274(c)(2)(B)—Teaming or

Business Arrangements

21. Must a BOC, that is engaged in a

teaming or business arrangement under

section 274(c)(2)(B) with ‘‘any separated

affiliate or with any other electronic

publisher,’’ obtain customer approval before

using, disclosing, or permitting access to

CPNI for such entities? What forms of

customer approval (oral, written, or opt-out)

would be necessary to permit a BOC to use

a customer’s CPNI on behalf of each of these

entities in this situation?

22. Must a BOC that solicits customer

approval, whether oral, written, or opt-out,

on behalf of any of its teaming or business

arrangements under section 274(c)(2)(B) also

offer to solicit that approval on behalf of

other teaming arrangements and unaffiliated

electronic publishers? That is, must the BOC

offer an ‘‘approval solicitation service’’ to

unaffiliated electronic publishers and

teaming arrangements when it provides such

a service for any of its teaming or business

arrangements under section 274(c)(2)(B)? If

so, what specific steps, if any, must a BOC

take to ensure that any solicitation it makes

to obtain customer approval does not favor

its electronic publishing teaming or business

arrangements over unaffiliated entities? If the

customer approves disclosure to both the

BOC’s electronic publishing teaming or

business arrangements and unaffiliated

entities, must a BOC provide the customer’s

CPNI to the unaffiliated entities on the same

rates, terms, and conditions (including

service intervals) as it provides the CPNI to

its electronic publishing teaming or business

arrangements?

23. To the extent that sections 222(c)(1)

and 222(c)(2) require customer approval, but

not an affirmative written request, before a

carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to

CPNI, must a BOC disclose CPNI to

unaffiliated electronic publishers under the

same standard for customer approval as is

permitted in connection with its teaming or

business arrangements under section

274(c)(2)(B)? If, for example, a BOC may

disclose CPNI to a section 274 separated

affiliate with which the BOC has a teaming

arrangement pursuant the customer’s oral or

opt-out approval, is the BOC likewise

required to disclose CPNI to unaffiliated

electronic publishers or teaming

arrangements upon obtaining approval from

the customer pursuant to the same method?

D. Other Issues

24. Does the seeking of customer approval

to use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI for

or on behalf of its section 274 separated

affiliate or electronic publishing joint venture

constitute a ‘‘transaction’’ under section

274(b)(3)? If so, what steps, if any, must the

BOC and its section 274 separated affiliate or

electronic publishing joint venture take to

comply with the requirements of section

274(b)(3) for purposes of CPNI?

25. Please comment on any other issues

relating to the interplay between sections 222

and 274.

26. Please propose any specific rules that

the Commission should adopt to implement

section 222 consistent with the provisions of

section 274?

[FR Doc. 97–4760 Filed 2–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD35

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of Reopening of

Public Comment Period on the

Proposed Rule to List the Pallid

Manzanita as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed Rule; notice of

reopening of the comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

provides notice of reopening of the

comment period on the proposed

threatened status for Arctostaphylos

pallida (pallid manzanita). The

comment period has been reopened to

acquire additional information from

interested parties, and to resume the

proposed listing actions.

DATES: The public comment period

closes March 27, 1997. Any comments

received by the closing date will be

considered in the final decision on this

proposal.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

materials concerning this proposal

should be sent directly to the Field

Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office,

3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130,

Sacramento, California 95821–6340.

Comments and materials received will

be available for inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Betty Warne (see ADDRESSES section) at

(916) 979–2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 2, 1995, the Service

published a rule proposing threatened

status for Arctostaphylos pallida (60 FR

39309–39314). The original comment

period closed on September 25, 1995.

No public hearing was requested.

Pallid manzanita is found only in the

northern Diablo Range of California. It

occupies 13 sites in Alameda and

Contra Costa Counties. The two largest

populations are located at Huckleberry

Ridge and Sobrante Ridge. The plants

are found in manzanita chaparral

habitat that is frequently surrounded by

oak woodlands and coastal scrub. The

plants are threatened by shading and

competition from native and non-native

plants, fire suppression, habitat

fragmentation, hybridization, disease,

herbicide spraying, unauthorized tree

cutting and inadequate regulatory

mechanisms.

The Service was unable to make a

final listing determination on this

species because of a limited budget,

other endangered species assignments

driven by court orders, and higher

listing priorities. In addition, a

moratorium on listing actions (Pub. L.

104–6), which took effect on April 10,

1995, stipulated that no funds could be

used to make final listing

determinations or critical habitat

determinations. Now that the funding

has been restored, the Service is

proceeding with a final determination

for this species.

Due to the length of time that has

elapsed since the close of the last

comment period, changing procedural

and biological circumstances, and the

need to review the best scientific

information available during the

decision-making process, the comment

period is being reopened. For these

reasons, the Service particularly seeks

information concerning:

(1) The known or potential effects of

fire suppression and general fire

management practices on the pallid

manzanita and its habitat.

(2) other updated biological,

commercial, or other relevant data on

any threats (or lack of thereof) to the

species; and

(3) the current size, number, or

distribution of populations of the

species.

Written comments may be submitted

until March 27, 1997 to the Service

office in the ADDRESSES section.

Author: The primary author of this

notice is Betty Warne (see ADDRESSES

section).
8418 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: February 14, 1997.

Thomas J. Dwyer,

Acting Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 97–4549 Filed 2–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P