20364 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1Editorial Note: This document was received at

the Office of the Federal Register on April 17, 1998.

high-power commercial lamp that is

suitable for lighting coverage of large,

commercial areas, such as warehouses,

parking lots and shopping malls.

Fusion’s efforts were supported by the

Department of Energy (DOE), the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and the National Air and Space

Administration (NASA). Fusion states

that its sulfur based lamp is over four

times more efficient than incandescent

lighting, yet does not have the color

drawbacks of present mercury based

high intensity discharge lamps used in

typical outside lighting and commercial

environments. The lamp produces a

spectra closely matching that of the sun,

but with very little heat or ultraviolet

rays. In testing demonstrations, two

Fusion lamps, shining light from both

ends into a reflective light tube 240 feet

long, were able to replace the light of

240 and 175 watt mercury lamps at the

DOE headquarters. At the National Air

and Space Museum, three Fusion lamps

shining into three separate 90–foot tubes

replaced 94 conventional lights.

14. Fusion states that the cost of

complying with the current lineconducted limits for RF lighting devices

is excessive. The Fusion lamp must use

a line filter to come into compliance

with the line-conducted limits for

commercial RF lighting devices. Fusion

argues that although existing line filters

will permit Fusion’s lamp to pass the

current FCC limits, they are not

designed for the operating temperatures

of the lamp and therefore fail to meet

Underwriter Laboratories (UL) safety

requirements. Additionally, Fusion

solicited data from power supply

manufacturers and notes that a custom

line filter needed to make their product

meet both the FCC and UL requirements

would add approximately 15 percent to

the final cost.

15. At this time, we are proposing no

additional, alternative RF rule

modifications beyond those generally

described by GE and Fusion. We seek

comment on any additional alternatives.

Federal Rules that May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rule

16. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 18

Business and industry.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–10948 Filed 4–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 22 and 64

[CC Docket No. 96–115, FCC 98–27]

Telecommunications Carriers’ Use of

Customer Proprietary Network

Information and Other Customer

Information

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is issuing

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) seeking comment on three

issues involving carrier duties and

obligations relating to the use of

Customer Proprietary Network

Information (CPNI) and other customer

information established under sections

222(a) and (b) of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996. We

are doing this based on various

responses from parties in the

proceeding.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

March 30, 1998 and Reply Comments

are due on or before April 14, 1998.1

Written comments by the public on the

proposed information collections are

due March 30, 1998. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed information collections on or

before July 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to 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 St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 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, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

Choi, Attorney, Common Carrier

Bureau, Policy and Program Planning

Division, (202) 418–1580. For additional

information concerning the information

collections contained in this NPRM

contact Judy Boley at (202) 418–0214, or

via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(FNPRM) adopted February 19, 1998

and released February 26, 1998 (FCC

98–27). This FNPRM contains proposed

information collections subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA). It has been submitted to the OMB

for review under the PRA. The OMB,

the general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed information collections

contained in this proceeding. The full

text of this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919

M St., N.W., Room 239, Washington,

D.C. The complete text also may be

obtained through the World Wide Web,

at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/

Common Carrier/Orders/fcc9827.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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains a proposed

information collection. The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

invites the general public and the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) to

comment on the information collections

contained in this NPRM, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Pub. L. 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as

other comments on this NPRM; OMB

notification of action is due 70 days

from date of publication of this NPRM

in the Federal Register. Comments

should address: (a) whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0715.

Title: Implementation of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996:

Telecommunications Carriers’ Use of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20365

Customer Proprietary Network

Information and Other Customer

Information.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Proposed Collections.

Respondents: Businesses or other for

profit.

Title Number of

responses

Estimated time per

response

Total annual

burden (hours)

Proposed Foreign Storage of CPNI ........................................................................... 10 78.5 hours ................. 785

Proposed Foreign Maintenance of CPNI of all U.S.-Based Customers’ Records .... 4,832 30 minutes ................. 2,416

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

I. Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. Implementation of sections 222(a)

and (b). The Commission in the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

focused on issues relating to the

implementation of sections 222(c)–(f).

Based on various responses from

parties, we now seek further comment

on three general issues that principally

involve carrier duties and obligations

established under sections 222(a) and

(b) of the Act. Specifically, section

222(a) requires telecommunications

carriers ‘‘to protect the confidentiality of

proprietary information of, and relating

to, other telecommunication carriers,

equipment manufacturers, and

customers, including

telecommunication carriers reselling

telecommunications services provided

by a telecommunications carrier.’’

Section 222(b) provides that ‘‘a

telecommunications carrier that receives

or obtains proprietary information from

another carrier for purposes of

providing any telecommunications

service shall use such information only

for such purpose, and shall not use such

information for its own marketing

efforts.’’

A. Customer Right to Restrict Carrier

Use of CPNI for Marketing Purposes

2. Section 222(c)(1) prohibits carriers

from using, disclosing, or permitting

access to CPNI without customer

approval for purposes other than those

expressly provided in sections 222(c)(1)

(A) and (B), and those in connection

with the exceptions established in

sections 222(d)(1)–(3). Section 222,

however, is silent on whether a

customer has the right to restrict a

telecommunications carrier from using,

disclosing, or permitting access to CPNI

within the circumstances defined by

subsections 222(c)(1) (A) and (B). While

the Notice referred to customers’ ‘‘rights

to restrict access to their CPNI,’’ it did

so in the context of when carriers must

seek approval for CPNI use for purposes

outside the scope of the exceptions in

sections 222(c)(1)(A) and (B).

3. One view is that customers should

be able to restrict carrier use of CPNI for

all marketing purposes, even within the

customer’s total service offering. This

position may be supported by the

privacy protection in section 222(a),

which imposes on every

telecommunications carrier ‘‘a duty to

protect the confidentiality of proprietary

information of, and relating to * * *

customers * * *,’’ as well as by the

principle of customer control implicitly

embodied in section 222(c). In addition,

interpreting section 222 to permit

customers to restrict all marketing use of

CPNI could be viewed as furthering the

privacy-competition balance struck in

section 222, insofar as such a right

would allow customers to prevent

carrier marketing practices that they

found objectionable as their service

relationship with the carrier grew.

Under this view, the only limitations on

the customer’s right to restrict uses of

CPNI within sections 222(c)(1)(A) and

(B) arguably would be those ‘‘required

by law’’ in accordance with section

222(c)(1), as well as those set forth in

section 222(d). We seek comment on

this issue of whether customers have a

right to restrict all marketing uses of

CPNI. Parties supporting a particular

interpretation should state the statutory

as well as policy basis for their

conclusion and should demonstrate

why other conclusions are not justified.

B. Protections for Carrier Information

and Enforcement Mechanisms

4. We seek comment on what, if any,

safeguards are needed to protect the

confidentiality of carrier information,

including that of resellers and

information service providers, that are

in addition to those adopted in this

accompanying order. We note that

Congress expressly protected carrier

information in section 222(a), as well as

in the specific limitations on the use of

that information in section 222(b). We

believe that Congress’ goals of

promoting competition and preserving

customer privacy will be furthered by

protecting the competitively-sensitive

information of other carriers, including

resellers and information service

providers, from network providers that

gain access to such information through

their provision of wholesale services.

Therefore, we seek comment on what, if

any, additional regulations or safeguards

are necessary to further this goal. These

safeguards, for example, may include

personnel and mechanical access

restrictions. Parties identifying specific

safeguards should comment explicitly

on the costs and benefits of imposing

such regulation.

5. We also seek comment on what, if

any, further enforcement mechanisms

we should adopt to ensure carrier

compliance with our rules, or that may

be necessary to encourage appropriate

carrier discharge of their duty under

section 222(a) to protect the

confidentiality of customer information.

We note, for example, that the

Commission in other proceedings has

sought to compensate carriers who have

become victims of anticompetitive

behavior, as well as to streamline and

update the formal complaint process in

order to promote the policies of the

1996 Act. Parties identifying specific

enforcement mechanisms should

comment explicitly on the costs and

benefits of imposing such regulation.

C. Foreign Storage of, and Access to,

Domestic CPNI

6. The Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) asks the Commission to regulate

the foreign storage of, and foreign-based

access to, CPNI of U.S. customers who

subscribe to domestic

telecommunications services (domestic

CPNI). The FBI contends that vital law

enforcement, public safety, national

security, business, and personal privacy

reasons justify a prohibition under

section 222 on carriers storing domestic

CPNI in foreign countries, for any

purpose, including billing and

collection. The FBI further maintains

that permitting direct foreign access or

foreign-storage of CPNI would seriously

undermine important U.S.

governmental, business, and privacybased protections afforded to CPNI

under other international and bilateral

treaties. According to the FBI, the

Commission has the authority to

prohibit such foreign storage or access

based upon our jurisdiction conferred in

section 222. We seek comment on the

FBI’s proposal. In particular, we seek
20366 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules

comment on whether the duty in section

222(a) upon all telecommunications

carriers to protect the confidentiality of

customers’ CPNI, or any other provision,

permits and/or requires us to prohibit

the foreign storage or access to domestic

CPNI.

7. As an exception to this

administrative prohibition, the FBI

suggests that foreign storage or access to

domestic CPNI may be permitted upon

informed written customer approval.

When a U.S. domestic customer

consents to having his or her CPNI

stored or accessed from a foreign

country, the FBI further proposes,

however, that we require carriers to

keep a copy of that customer’s CPNI

record within the U.S. for public safety,

law enforcement, and national security

reasons, so that such information is

available promptly to law enforcement.

We seek comment on whether requiring

written customer consent to store or

access CPNI from a foreign country and

maintaining duplicate CPNI records in

the U.S are necessary to protect

customer confidentiality under section

222(a) or any other provision.

8. Finally, the FBI also requests that

we require carriers to maintain copies of

the CPNI of all U.S.-based customers,

regardless of whether they are U.S.

domestic customers, because of the need

for prompt, secure, and confidential law

enforcement, public safety, or national

security access to such information,

pursuant to lawful authority. The FBI

cites the need of such information for

investigations and as trial evidence. We

seek comment on this proposal.

II. Procedural Issues

B. Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. Ex Parte Presentations

9. This matter shall be treated as a

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in

accordance with the Commission’s ex

parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.

Persons making oral ex parte

presentations are reminded that

memoranda summarizing the

presentations must contain summaries

of the substance of the presentations

and not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description of the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as

revised. Other rules pertaining to oral

and written presentations are set forth

in section 1.1206(b) as well.

2. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

Analysis

10. This Further Notice contains a

proposed information collection. As

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, we invite the

general public and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to take

this opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in

this Further Notice, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.

L. 104–13. Public and agency comments

are due at the same time as other

comments on this Further Notice; OMB

comments are due July 6, 1998.

Comments should address: (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

3. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis

11. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended, 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 this

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(Further Notice). Written public

comments are requested on this IRFA.

Comments must be identified as

responses to the IRFA and must be filed

by the deadlines for comments on the

Further Notice. The Commission will

send a copy of the Further Notice,

including this IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C.

603(a). In addition, the Further Notice

and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be

published in the Federal Register. See

id.

a. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

12. The Commission is issuing the

Further Notice to seek comment on

whether customers may restrict a

carrier’s use of CPNI for all marketing

purposes, even within sections

222(c)(1)(A) and (B). The Commission

also seeks comment on what, if any,

additional further safeguards may be

needed to protect the confidentiality of

carrier information, including that of

resellers and information service

providers, and on what further

enforcement mechanisms, if any, should

be adopted to ensure carrier compliance

with the rules adopted pursuant to the

Second Report and Order. The

Commission seeks comment on whether

the duty in section 222(a) upon all

telecommunications carriers to protect

the confidentiality of customers’ CPNI,

or any other provision, permits or

requires the Commission to prohibit the

foreign storage of, or access to domestic

CPNI, as requested by the FBI based on

their national security concerns.

b. Legal Basis

13. The Further Notice is adopted

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 222, and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),

222, and 303(r).

c. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply

14. Consistent with our conclusions

in the present Second Report and Order,

our rules apply to all

telecommunications carriers; therefore,

any new rules or changes in our rules

adopted as a result of the Further Notice

might impact small entities, as

described in the Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis supra. For a list of

the small entities to which the proposed

rules would apply, see the Second

Report and Order Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis supra Part X.A.1.c

(Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposed Rules will Apply). We hereby

incorporate that description and

estimate into this IRFA. These entities

include telephone companies, wireline

carriers and service providers, local

exchange carriers, interexchange

carriers, competitive access providers,

operator service providers, pay

telephone operators, wireless carriers,

cellular service carriers, mobile service

carriers, broadband PCS licensees,

narrowband PCS licensees, SMR

licensees, and resellers. We discussed

supra the number of small businesses

falling within both of the SIC categories,

and attempted to refine further those

estimates to correspond with the

categories of telephone companies that

are commonly used under our rules.

d. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

15. Because we have not made any

tentative conclusions or suggested

proposed rules, we are unable at this

time to describe any projected reporting,

recordkeeping, or other compliance

requirements. We have discussed

generally in the Further Notice, supra

Part IX, however, the possibility that

such proposals, if adopted, might entail

additional obligations for carriers.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20367

e. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

16. As noted supra, we seek comment

on whether customers may restrict a

carrier’s use of CPNI for all marketing

purpose, and on what, if any, additional

safeguards may be needed to protect the

confidentiality of carrier information, as

well as what further enforcement

mechanisms, if any, should be adopted

to ensure carrier compliance with our

rules. In addition, we seek comment on

whether the duty in section 222(a) upon

all telecommunications carriers to

protect the confidentiality of customers’

CPNI, or any other provision, permits or

requires the Commission to prohibit the

foreign storage of, or access to domestic

CPNI. Consistent with our rules in the

Second Report and Order, our intent is

to further the statutory principle that

customers must have the opportunity to

protect the information they view as

sensitive and personal from use and

disclosure by carriers. Because we have

not proposed any rules, at this juncture,

we are unable to forecast the economic

impact on small entities.

f. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

17. None.

4. Comment Filing Procedures

18. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of

the Commission’s rules, interested

parties may file comments on or before

March 30, 1998, and reply comments on

or before April 14, 1998. 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 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.

19. 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

section 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.

20. 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. 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

labeled 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.

21. You may also file informal

comments or an exact copy of your

formal comments electronically via the

Internet at <http://

dettifoss.fcc.gov:8080/cgi-bin/ws.exe/

beta/ecfs/upload.hts>. For information

on filing comments via the Internet,

please see <ecfs@fcc.gov>. Only one

copy of electronically-filed comments

must be submitted. You must put the

docket number of this proceeding in the

body of the text if you are filing by

Internet. You must note whether an

electronic submission is an exact copy

of formal comments on the subject line.

You also must include your full name

and Postal Service mailing address in

your submission.

III. Ordering Clauses

22. Accordingly, It is ordered that

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 222 and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),

222 and 303(r), a Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking is hereby

Adopted.

23. It is further ordered that the

Commission’s Office of Public Affairs,

Reference Operations Division, shall

send a copy of this Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, including the

associated Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration, in accordance with

paragraph 605(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et

seq. (1981).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 22

Communications common carriers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

47 CFR Part 64

Communications common carriers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–10741 Filed 4–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P