Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16807

Health and Natural Resources. Requests

for copies should be addressed to Mr.

Donald Safrit, North Carolina

Department of Environment, Health and

Natural Resources at the address

provided above or at telephone number

(919) 733–5083 ext. 519.

EPA’s Decision

After the close of the public comment

period, EPA will decide whether to

approve or disapprove North Carolina’s

sludge management program. The

decision will be based on the

requirements of Section 405 of the CWA

and EPA regulations promulgated

thereunder.

If the North Carolina program is

approved, EPA will so notify the State.

Notice will be published in the Federal

Register and, as of the date of program

approval, EPA will suspend issuance of

sludge management permits in North

Carolina (except, as discussed above, for

those dischargers in ‘‘Indian Country’’).

The State’s program will operate in lieu

of the EPA-administered program.

However, EPA will retain the right,

among other things, to object to Sludge

permits proposed to be issued by North

Carolina and to take enforcement

actions for violations.

If EPA disapproves North Carolina’s

sludge management program, EPA will

notify the State of the reasons for

disapproval and of any revisions or

modifications to the State program that

are necessary to obtain approval.

Review Under Regulatory Flexibility

Act and Executive Order 12866

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis for all rules that

may have a significant impact on a

substantial number of entities. The

proposed approval of the North Carolina

sludge management program does not

alter the regulatory control over any

industrial category. No new substantive

requirements are established by this

action. Therefore, I hereby certify that

because this notice does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities, a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis is not needed.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to the

Office of Management and Budget’s

review.

Dated: March 26, 1997.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 97–8671 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 96–149; DA 97–666]

Comments Requested To Aid

Commission in Expedited

Reconsideration of Interpretation of

Section 272(e)(4)

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Commission released a

Public Notice which establishes a

pleading cycle for comments on specific

issues relating to the scope and nature

of the restrictions imposed by section

272(e)(4). Certain Bell Operating

Companies (BOCs) filed a motion with

the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit seeking

summary reversal of the Commission’s

interpretation of section 272(e)(4) in its

First Report and Order and Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in this docket (62

FR 2927 (January 21, 1997) and 62 FR

2991 (January 21, 1997)). The

Commission asked that it be given the

opportunity to reconsider its

interpretation since some of the BOC

arguments advanced in their motion had

not been clearly presented to the

Commission in the rulemaking

proceeding. On March 31, 1997, the

court granted the Commission’s request

and directed it to reconsider its position

within 90 days. The Commission wishes

to build a complete record on these

issues.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

April 17, 1997, and reply comments are

due on or before April 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to Office of

the Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Room 222, Washington, DC 20554, with

a copy to Janice Myles of the Common

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

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, N.W., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Ellen, Common Carrier Bureau,

Policy and Program Planning Division,

(202) 418–1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Synopsis of Public Notice

1. In a recent rulemaking, the

Commission construed the scope of

section 272(e)(4) of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended by the

Telecommunications Act of 1996. The

Commission concluded that section

272(e)(4) is not a grant of authority for

a Bell Operating Company (BOC) to

provide interLATA services prior to

receiving section 271 authority. The

Commission further concluded that

section 272(e)(4) is not a grant of

authority for a BOC to provide

interLATA services, including

wholesale interLATA services provided

to its interLATA affiliate, after receiving

section 271 authority. Following the

rulemaking, certain BOCs filed a motion

with the United States Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit

seeking summary reversal of the

Commission’s interpretation of section

272(e)(4). The Commission responded

that, among other things, some of the

arguments that the BOCs advanced in

their motion for summary reversal had

not been clearly presented to the

Commission in the rulemaking

proceeding. The Commission, therefore,

asked that it be given the opportunity to

reconsider, in light of these arguments,

its interpretation of section 272(e)(4)

prior to judicial review of those

arguments. On March 31, 1997, the

court granted the Commission’s request,

concluding that ‘‘[t]he merits of the

parties’ positions are not so clear as to

warrant summary action.’’ The court

noted that it expects that ‘‘the

Commission will adhere to its proposal

to complete any further proceedings and

adopt a revised order within 90 days of

the date of this order.’’

2. In this Public Notice, to aid the

Commission in meeting its commitment

to reconsider promptly its interpretation

of section 272(e)(4), the Common Carrier

Bureau seeks comment on certain

specific issues relating to section

272(e)(4). Parties should feel free to

address any of the other issues

previously addressed before the

Commission or the court that are

relevant to this inquiry.

3. Section 272(a) states, among other

things, that BOCs ‘‘may not provide’’

directly ‘‘[o]rigination of [in-region]

interLATA telecommunications

services.’’ Before the court, the BOCs

argued that their reading of section

272(e)(4) does not conflict with section

272(a) because when a BOC provides inregion interLATA telecommunications

services on a wholesale basis, it does

not ‘‘[o]riginat[e]’’ such services. We

seek comment on what precisely it

means to ‘‘originate’’ an interLATA

telecommunications service. Is

‘‘origination’’ strictly a retail concept?

Commenting parties should also discuss

the legal implications, if any, of the fact

that section 271(b)(1), which prohibits a

BOC or its affiliate from providing
16808 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

‘‘interLATA services originating in any

of its in-region States’’ prior to FCC

approval, also uses a form of the term

‘‘originate.’’

4. What is the legal significance, if

any, of the fact that section 272(e)(4)

applies to intraLATA services and

facilities as well as interLATA services

and facilities? Before the court, for

example, AT&T argued that the use of

the term ‘‘intraLATA’’ demonstrates that

section 272(e)(4) is not a grant of

authority because, among other things,

‘‘a BOC needs no grant of federal

statutory authority to provide

intraLATA services.’’

5. Are the principal concerns that

underlie the separate affiliate

requirement of section 272—

discrimination and cost misallocation

by a BOC—less serious in the context of

the wholesale provisioning of in-region

interLATA services to affiliates than in

the context of the direct retail

provisioning of such services, at least

where, as here, any such provisioning is

required to take place in a nondiscriminatory manner? If they are less

serious, are they nonetheless serious

enough to justify, as a policy matter,

prohibiting such wholesale

provisioning? Of what relevance, if any,

is the fact that there was no exception

to the interLATA services restriction

contained in the Modified Final

Judgment for wholesale interLATA

services provided on a nondiscriminatory basis, or that there

presently is no wholesale interLATA

services exception to section 271’s

prohibition on the provision of in-region

interLATA services prior to FCC

approval? At the same time, of what

relevance, if any, is the fact that once a

BOC has received section 271 approval

and its interLATA affiliate is permitted

to provide in-region interLATA services,

the 1996 Act also allows the BOC to

provide its interLATA affiliate various

wholesale services and facilities, such

as wholesale access services and

wholesale access to unbundled network

elements, so long as the BOC does so in

a non-discriminatory way and in arm’s

length transactions? What is the policy

justification for not permitting the BOC

to provide, in addition, wholesale

interLATA services to its affiliate?

6. Does the extent of concern for

discrimination and cost misallocation

depend, at least in part, on the

particular kind of in-region wholesale

interLATA service a BOC seeks to offer?

For example, does the extent of concern

differ depending on whether the

wholesale service being offered is a

bundled end-to-end interLATA service

or a interLATA service that merely

transmits traffic from a point of

presence in one LATA to a point of

presence in another LATA? How would

the non-discrimination requirement in

section 272(e)(4) apply to these different

kinds of wholesale interLATA services?

Are there some kinds of services that, in

practice, could not be provided in a

non-discriminatory manner? In their

comments, BOCs should clarify

precisely what kind of wholesale

interLATA service they would seek to

provide, if any, using the excess

capacity on their official services

networks.

7. Interested parties should file an

original and two copies of their

comments by April 17, 1997, and reply

comments by April 24, 1997, with the

Secretary, FCC, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20554. A copy should

also be sent to Janice Myles, Common

Carrier Bureau, FCC, Room 544, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 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 and reply comments should

include the Commission docket number,

CC Docket No. 96–149, on their

pleadings. Comments and reply

comments will be available for public

inspection during regular business

hours in the FCC Reference Center,

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

Washington, D. C. 20554.

8. We will continue to treat this

proceeding as non-restricted for

purposes of the Commission’s ex parte

rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1200–

1.1216.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9047 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[Report No. 2185]

Petitions for Reconsideration and

Clarification of Action in Rulemaking

Proceeding

April 2, 1997.

Petitions for reconsideration and

clarification have been filed in the

Commission’s rulemaking proceedings

listed in this Public Notice and

published pursuant to 47 CFR Section

1.429(e). A full text of these documents

are available for viewing and copying in

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

Washington, D.C. or may be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

ITS, Inc. (202) 857–3800. Oppositions to

these petitions must be filed April 23,

1997. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the

Commission’s rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1).

Replies to an opposition must be filed

within 10 days after the time for filing

oppositions has expired.

Subject: The Use of N11 Codes and

Other Abbreviated Dialing

Arrangements. (CC Docket No. 92–105).

Number of Petitions Filed: 5.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8864 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License

Applicants

Notice is hereby given that the

following applicants have filed with the

Federal Maritime Commission

applications for licenses as ocean freight

forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app.

1718 and 46 CFR 510).

Persons knowing of any reason why

any of the following applicants should

not receive a license are requested to

contact the Office of Freight Forwarders,

Federal Maritime Commission,

Washington, DC. 20573.

CERES Freight Systems, Inc., 26 East Bryan

Street, Savannah, GA 31401, Officers:

Robert H. Demere, Jr., President, Eugene R.

Tompkins, Vice President

World Trade Forwarding Group Corp., 9600

N.W. 25th Street, Suite 2–B, Miami, FL

33172, Officers: Vivian ManrigueCollantes, President, Salvador C. Collantes,

Vice President

Cabell Export, 922 White Marlin Drive,

Charleston, SC 29412, Lesley Schoepf

Cabell, Sole Proprietor

Robert W. Cisco Custom House Broker, 416

Common Street, Suite 101, New Orleans,

LA 70130, Robert William Cisco, Sole

Proprietor

Ex-Works Miami Corp., 1360 N.W. 78

Avenue, Miami, FL 33126, Officer: Miriam

R. Perez, President

Sea Expo Freight Services, Inc., 32

Somerville Road, Hewitt, NJ 07421, Officer:

William T. Murphy

Blanca Company Inc., 913 South Jackson

Street, Suite B, Seattle, WA 98104,

Officers: Vannara Zou, President, Suke

Zou, Chairman

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8870 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M