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