Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules 12529

‘‘Public Health Service Policy on

Humane Care and Use of Laboratory

Animals,’’ Office for Protection from

Research Risks, NIH (Revised

September 1986) 59 FR 14508 (as

republished March 28, 1994)—NIH

Guidelines on the Inclusion of

Women and Minorities as Subjects in

Clinical Research

[FR Doc. 95–5433 Filed 3–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 95–20; FCC 95–48]

Computer III Further Remand

Proceedings: Bell Operating Company

Provision of Enhanced Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On October 18, 1994, the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit remanded in part the

Commission’s BOC Safeguards Order in

the Computer III proceedings, which

had established procedures for the Bell

Operating Companies (BOCs) to offer

enhanced services on a structurally

integrated basis. This Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking responds to the

court decision. The Notice reviews the

nonstructural safeguards that have been

implemented under the Computer III

framework, and asks parties to comment

on the specific issue remanded by the

court, as well as on the broader question

of whether structural separation should

be reimposed for some or all BOC

enhanced services.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before April 7, 1995, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

April 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rose Crellin at (202) 418–1571 or Kevin

Werbach at (202) 418–1597, Policy and

Program Planning Division, Common

Carrier Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 95–48,

adopted February 7, 1995 and released

February 21, 1995. The full text of this

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 239),

1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC.

The complete text of this decision may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 2100 M Street NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. In the Computer III proceeding,

beginning with the Phase I Order (51 FR

24350 (July 3, 1986)), the Commission

concluded that the Bell Operating

Companies (BOCs) should be permitted

to offer enhanced services without

establishing structurally separate

subsidiaries. Enhanced services use the

existing telephone network to deliver

services—such as voice mail, E-Mail,

and gateways to on-line databases—

beyond a basic transmission offering.

Under structural separation

requirements, the BOCs had to form

subsidiary companies, with separate

personnel, facilities, and equipment, to

offer these services. The need for

safeguards on BOC provision of

enhanced services arises from the fact

that competing enhanced service

providers generally must depend on the

BOC networks to transport their services

to customers. The Commission has

identified two primary forms of

anticompetitive conduct that may arise

from BOC involvement in the enhanced

services marketplace: (1) Improper

cross-subsidization, in which the BOCs

undercut competing enhanced service

providers (ESPs) by shifting costs from

their enhanced services to their

regulated basic services; and (2) access

discrimination, in which BOCs provide

competing ESPs with inferior

interconnection and access to network

services that these companies need for

their enhanced services.

2. In Computer III, the Commission

determined that the benefits of lifting

structural separation requirements—in

terms of increased availability of

enhanced services—outweighed the

risks of anticompetitive conduct by the

BOCs, and that a regime of

nonstructural safeguards could provide

adequate protection against crosssubsidization and access discrimination.

The Commission established a two-step

process in Computer III for lifting

structural separation restrictions.

Initially, BOCs were permitted to offer

individual enhanced services on a

structurally integrated basis once they

had received FCC approval of servicespecific Comparably Efficient

Interconnection (CEI) plans. Those

plans were required to detail how the

BOCs would make the underlying

network services used by their own

enhanced service offerings available to

competing ESPs on an equal access

basis. In the second stage of Computer

III, BOCs were required to develop Open

Network Architecture (ONA) plans

detailing how they would unbundle and

make available basic network services,

and describing how they would comply

with other nonstructural safeguards.

Upon FCC approval of the initial BOC

ONA plans, the remaining structural

separation requirements were to be

lifted. Following a remand from the

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,

the Commission strengthened and

reaffirmed its regime of nonstructural

safeguards in the 1991 BOC Safeguards

Order (57 FR 4373 (February 5, 1992)).

Between 1992 and 1993, the Common

Carrier Bureau granted full structural

relief to the BOCs upon a showing that

they had complied with the

requirements of the BOC Safeguards

Order, and those decisions were

subsequently ratified by the

Commission.

3. In October, 1994, the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

partially remanded the BOC Safeguards

Order. The court concluded that the

Commission had scaled back its

conception of ONA from the original

vision in Computer III, and had not

explained how the more limited version

of ONA represented in the approved

BOC ONA plans provided sufficient

protection against BOC access

discrimination. On this basis, the court

held that the FCC’s cost benefit analysis

for fully lifting structural separation

restrictions was flawed. On January 11,

1995, the Common Carrier Bureau

clarified the requirements for BOC

provision of enhanced services after the

Ninth Circuit decision, and granted the

BOCs interim waivers to offer new

services, subject to certain restrictions

and filing requirements, during the

pendancy of remand proceedings.

4. In this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, the Commission has

initiated a proceeding to reexamine its

Computer III rules in light of the most

recent Ninth Circuit remand. The

Commission noted that the partial

vacation of the BOC Safeguards Order

generally reinstates the Computer III

service-by-service CEI plan regime,

subject to the modification spelled out

in the Common Carrier Bureau’s waiver

order. The Commission concluded that

the Ninth Circuit had remanded the

specific issue of whether the existing

nonstructural safeguards including the

level of network unbundling under

ONA, are sufficient to justify fully

lifting structural separation

requirements.

5. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

reviewed the various nonstructural
12530 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules

safeguards the Commission has put into

place to protect against anticompetitive

practices by the BOCs. The Commission

described how the ONA model had

evolved, and the forms of network

unbundling it encompasses today and is

likely to cover in the future. The Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking also outlined

the other safeguards that are designed to

work in concert with ONA to protect

against anticompetitive practices by the

BOCs. Parties were asked to comment

on the specific issue identified by the

court: Whether these nonstructural

safeguards are sufficient for the BOCs to

be granted full structural relief.

6. The Commission also asked parties

to comment on broader issues regarding

the relative merits of structural and

nonstructural safeguards. The

Commission noted that, although there

is evidence to suggest that nonstructural

safeguards have been effective, various

parties have argued that structural

separation should be reimposed on the

BOCs. In order to provide it with

information to make an informed

decision, the Commission asked

commenters to provide specific

evidence as to the relative costs and

benefits of structural separation and

nonstructural safeguards.

7. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

also sought comment on the protection

against discrimination necessary to

allow ESPs and BOCs to compete

effectively without creating unnecessary

burdens, whether certain types of

enhanced services may require greater

protection than others, and whether

structural separation or additional

nonstructural safeguards are needed for

specific enhanced services. Parties were

asked to identify any specific

unbundled network services that BOCs

do not currently provide which meet the

criteria established in Computer III for

service unbundling. To the extent that

parties propose a reimposition of

structural separation, the Commission

asked that they identify the benefits that

they believe will accrue for the

provision of enhanced services to

consumers from such action, and

articulate why these benefits cannot be

achieved under a regime of

nonstructural safeguards.

8. Finally, the Commission recognized

that a return to some form of structural

separation requirements at this time

would impose certain transition costs

on the BOCs, and could result in service

disruption and customer confusion. The

Commission therefore asked parties to

identify transitional expenses that

would be borne by customers of BOC

enhanced services, and to indicate

whether a return to structural separation

requirements would result in

disruptions of service or confusion

among customers. To the extent that

parties believe structural separation is

appropriate, the Commission asked

them to describe particular scenarios

and timetables under which BOCs

would be required to move from the

existing partially integrated CEI plan

regime, and to identify the specific costs

and benefits of those scenarios.

Ordering Clauses

1. Accordingly, it is ordered That,

pursuant to the authority contained in

sections 1, 4, and 201–205 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, and 201–

205, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is

hereby adopted.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Communciations common carriers,

Computer technology.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5491 Filed 3–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–29, RM–8596]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Iron

Mountain, MI

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition filed by

Superior Media Group, Inc., proposing

the allotment of Channel 294A to Iron

Mountain, Michigan, as that

community’s third local FM service.

The channel can be allotted to Iron

Mountain without a site restriction at

coordinates 45–49–12 and 88–04–06.

Canadian concurrence will be requested

for this allotment.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before April 24, 1995, and reply

comments on or before May 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

In addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel, as follows:

Matthew H. McCormick, Reddy, Begley,

Martin & McCormick, 1001 22nd Street,

NW, Suite 350, Washington, D. C.

20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

95–29, adopted February 21, 1995, and

released March 2, 1995. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the

Commission’s Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington,

D.C. The complete text of this decision

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractors,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140,

Washington, D.C. 20037, (202) 857–

3800.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contact.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–5492 Filed 3–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 45, 52

Federal Acquisition Regulation;

Government Property

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation and

rescheduling of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The public meetings

originally scheduled for March 9, and

10, 1995, as part of the continuing

initiative to rewrite the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 45,

Government Property, have been

canceled and rescheduled for April 6,

1995, and April 7, 1995.

DATES: Public Meetings: The public

meetings will be conducted at the

address shown below from 12:30 p.m. to

5:00 p.m., local time, on April 6, 1995;

and from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., local

time, on April 7, 1995.

Statements: Statements from

interested parties for presentation at the