13852 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5. U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPAmust

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

This Federal action authorizes and

approves into the Kansas SIP

requirements previously adopted by the

state, and imposes no new

requirements. Therefore, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-state relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. Under section 205, the

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires the

EPA to establish a plan for informing

and advising any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

proposed action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

authorizes and approves into the Kansas

SIP requirements previously adopted by

the state, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–7348 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 96–98; DA 97–557]

Petition of MCI for Declaratory Ruling

That New Entrants Need Not Obtain

Separate License or Right-to-Use

Agreements Before Purchasing

Unbundled Elements

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for declaratory ruling;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Commission has released

a Public Notice which establishes a

pleading cycle for comments on a

petition for declaratory ruling filed by

MCI requesting the Commission to issue

a declaratory ruling that new entrants

need not obtain separate license or

right-to-use agreements before

purchasing unbundled network

elements, and that the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, requires an

incumbent LEC to provide requesting

telecommunications carriers the same

rights to intellectual property that the

incumbent LEC enjoys. The Commission

wishes to build a complete record on

this issue.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

April 15, 1997, and reply comments are

due on or before May 6, 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., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kalpak Gude, Common Carrier Bureau,

Policy and Program Planning Division,

(202) 418–1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Synopsis of Public Notice

On March 11, 1997, MCI filed a

petition for declaratory ruling

requesting the Commission to issue a

declaratory ruling that any requirement

imposed by an incumbent local

exchange carrier (LEC) or by a state or

local government that a requesting

telecommunications carrier obtain

separate license or right-to-use

agreements before the requesting carrier

may purchase access to unbundled

network elements violates sections 251

and 253 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended (the Act). MCI also

asks the Commission to issue a

declaratory ruling that the Act’s

nondiscrimination requirement requires

an incumbent LEC to provide requesting

telecommunications carriers the same

rights to intellectual property that the

incumbent LEC enjoys.

We are assigning file number CCBPol

97–4 to this proceeding. This issue MCI

raises was also raised in a Petition for

Reconsideration of the First Report and

Order in CC Docket No. 96–98 (61 FR

45476 (August 29, 1996)) that was filed

by Local Exchange Carrier Coalition.

Therefore, commenters must include

both the docket number and the file

number on all pleadings, and should file

copies in both proceedings.

In order to build as complete a record

as possible, we encourage parties to

comment on the following questions: (1)

Does providing access to unbundled

network elements implicate the

intellectual property rights of

equipment vendors or other third

parties? Why or why not? We urge

parties to provide specific supporting

information, including descriptions of

the types of provisions included in

existing contracts between incumbent
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 13853

LECs and third parties. (2) Does

providing access to network elements

other than access to vertical features of

unbundled switches implicate

intellectual property rights of

equipment vendors or other third

parties? Why or why not? (3) Does

providing access to services for resale,

in accordance with section 251,

implicate intellectual property rights of

equipment vendors or other third

parties? Why or why not? (4) What are

the potential burdens on requesting

telecommunications carriers if they are

required to independently negotiate

licensing agreements with equipment

vendors or other third parties before

obtaining access to unbundled network

elements? Are there ways to eliminate

or reduce those burdens on requesting

telecommunications carriers? In

addition, we encourage parties to

comment on MCI’s proposal that

incumbent LECs bear the burden of

negotiating any extension or

augmentation of intellectual property

rights that might be implicated in

interconnection agreements.

Interested parties should file

comments on MCI’s petition by April

15, 1997, and reply comments by May

6, 1997, with the Secretary, FCC, 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

A copy should also be sent to Janice

Myles, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC,

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

Washington, D.C. 20554, and to the

Commission’s contractor for public

service records duplication, ITS, Inc.,

2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140,

Washington, D.C. 20037. Parties filing

comments should include the Policy

Division internal reference number,

CCBPol 97–4, as well as the docket

number, CC Docket No. 96–98, on their

pleadings. MCI’s petition is available for

inspection and copying during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

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

Washington, D.C. 20554, as well as in

the Common Carrier Bureau’s Public

Reference Room, Room 575, 2000 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20554.

Copies can also be obtained from ITS by

calling (202) 857–3800. Comments and

reply comments must include a short

and concise summary of the substantive

arguments raised in the pleading.

We will treat this proceeding as nonrestricted for purposes of the

Commission’s ex parte rules. See

generally 47 CFR §§ 1.1200–1.1216.

Parties may not file more than a total of

ten (10) pages of ex parte submissions,

excluding cover letters. This ten-page

limit does not include: (1) written ex

parte filings made solely to disclose an

oral ex parte contract; (2) written

material submitted at the time of an oral

presentation to Commission staff that

provides a brief outline of the

presentation; or (3) written material

filed in response to direct requests from

Commission staff. Ex parte filings in

excess of this limit will not be

considered as part of the record in this

proceeding.

Federal Communications Commission

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–7527 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Parts 25, 26, 73, 76 and 100

[MM Docket No. 95–176; DA 97–568]

Closed Captioning of Video

Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

reply comment period.

SUMMARY: This Order extends the period

for the public to file reply comments in

this rulemaking from March 24, 1997

until March 31, 1997. This action will

allow the public to more adequately

reply to comments previously filed in

response to the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) seeking

comment on proposed rules for the

closed captioning of video

programming.

DATES: Reply comments are now due on

or before March 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marcia Glauberman, John Adams or

Alexis Johns, Cable Services Bureau,

(202) 418–7200, TTY (202) 418–7172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By this

Order, we extend the time period for

filing reply comments in this docket

until March 31, 1997. Section 305 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (‘‘1996

Act’’) added a new Section 713, Video

Programming Accessibility, to the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended (‘‘Communications Act’’).

Section 713 requires the Commission to

prescribe, by August 8, 1997, rules and

implementation schedules for the closed

captioning of video programming. On

January 9, 1997, the Commission

adopted a NPRM, summarized at 62 FR

4959 (February 3, 1997), in this docket,

seeking comment on proposed rules,

implementation schedules and

exemptions as authorized by Congress

in Section 713. The NPRM established

March 24, 1997, as the deadline for

filing reply comments.

This action is taken pursuant to

authority found in Sections 4(i), 303(r)

and 713 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),

303(r) and 613.

Federal Communications Commission

Meredith J. Jones,

Chief, Cable Services Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–7321 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P