Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26483

Original amendment

submission date

Date of final

publication

November 11, 1985 March 20, 1986.

June 30, 1986 and

April 26, 1986.

May 23, 1990.

June 29, 1990 ........... October 4, 1991.

July 12, 1991 ............. November 19, 1991.

July 30, 1993 ............. August 16, 1995.

June 28, 1993 ........... October 4, 1995 and

February 21, 1996.

31. Section 948.25 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 948.25 Approval of West Virginia

abandoned mine land reclamation plan

amendments.

The following is a list of the dates

amendments were submitted to OSM

and the dates when the Director’s

decision approving all, or portions of

these amendments, were published in

the Federal Register:

Original amendment

submission date

Date of final

publication

May 20, 1985 ............ July 11, 1985.

December 30, 1987 August 26, 1988.

September 17, 1991

and October 25,

1991.

March 26, 1993.

PART 950—WYOMING

32. The authority citation for part 950

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

33. Section 950.15 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 950.15 Approval of Wyoming regulatory

program amendments.

The following is a list of the dates

amendments were submitted to OSM

and the dates when the Director’s

decision approving all, or portions of

these amendments, were published in

the Federal Register:

Original amendment

submission date

Date of final

publication

March 26, 1981 and

April 8, 1981.

February 18, 1982.

May 26, 1982 ............ September 27, 1982.

March 3, 1983, March

8, 1983 and March

21, 1983.

November 9, 1983.

June 25, 1984 ........... February 28, 1985.

September 21, 1984 December 3, 1985.

October 12, 1984 ...... December 13, 1985.

June 19, 1985 ........... January 2, 1986.

June 10, 1985 ........... March 31, 1986.

May 1, 1986 .............. November 24, 1986.

December 13, 1985 May 6, 1987.

March 31, 1989 ......... July 25, 1990.

May 1, 1986 .............. January 29, 1991.

March 21, 1991 ......... July 8, 1992.

June 24, 1991 ........... October 29, 1992.

March 19, 1993 ......... August 23, 1993.

July 8, 1992 ............... October 7, 1993.

Original amendment

submission date

Date of final

publication

July 24, 1992 ............. November 2, 1993.

August 18, 1982 and

March 9, 1993.

January 24, 1994.

December 15, and

August 6, 1993.

March 30, 1994.

May 1, 1986 .............. June 30, 1994.

April 13, 1994 ............ October 21, 1994.

November 8, 1994 .... March 17, 1995.

June 2, 1995 ............. September 14, 1995

34. Section 950.35 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 950.35 Approval of Wyoming abandoned

mine land reclamation plan amendments.

(a) Wyoming certification of

completing all known coal-related

impacts is accepted, effective May 25,

1984.

(b) The following is a list of the dates

amendments were submitted to OSM

and the dates when the Director’s

decision approving all, or portions of

these amendments, were published in

the Federal Register:

Original amendment

submission date

Date of final

publication

December 16, 1991 April 13, 1992.

April 21, 1995 ............ February 21, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96–13260 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 96–115, FCC 96–221]

Implementation of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996:

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

seeking comment on proposed

regulations to specify in more detail and

clarify the obligations of

telecommunications carriers with

respect to the use and protection of

customer proprietary network

information (CPNI) and other customer

information. The Notice is being issued

in response to formal and informal

requests for guidance as to local

exchange carriers’ responsibilities under

the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The objective of the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is to provide an

opportunity for public comment and to

provide a record for a Commission

decision on the issues stated above.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

June 11, 1996 and Reply Comments are

due on or before June 26, 1996. Written

comments by the public on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections are due June 11, 1996.

Written comments must be submitted by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) on the proposed and/or modified

information collections on or before July

29, 1996.

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. In addition to

filing comments with the Secretary, a

copy of any comments on the

information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Dorothy

Conway, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to dconway@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Blaise Scinto, Attorney, Common

Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program

Planning Division, (202) 418–1380, or

Radhika Karmarkar, Attorney, Common

Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program

Planning Division, (202) 418–1628. For

additional information concerning the

information collections contained in

this NPRM contact Dorothy Conway at

202–418–0217, or via the Internet at

dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking adopted May 16,

1996 and released May 17, 1996 (FCC–

96–221). This NPRM contains proposed

or modified information collections

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB,

the general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed or modified information

collections contained in this

proceeding. The full text of this Notice
26484 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

of Proposed Rulemaking is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M St., NW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M St., NW.,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains either a

proposed or modified 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. No. 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as

other comments on this NPRM; OMB

notification of action is due July 29,

1996. 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: None.

Title: Implementation of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996:

Telecommunications Carriers’ Use of

Customer Proprietary Network

Information and Other Customer

Information, CC Docket No. 96–115.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Information collection requirement

Number of

respondents

(approx.)

Estimated time per response Total annual

burden

Customer approval—oral ........................................................................ 1,500 10 hours ......................................... 15,000 hours.

Customer approval—written .................................................................... 1,500 10 hours ......................................... 15,000 hours.

Burden of proof—oral approval ............................................................... 100 1 hour ............................................. 100 hours.

CPNI Disclosure to Third Parties ............................................................ 500 5 hours ........................................... 2,500 hours.

Record-keeping requirement for restricted CPNI .................................... 3,000 5 hours ........................................... 15,000 hours.

Aggregate CPNI disclosure ..................................................................... 1,400 5 hours ........................................... 7,000 hours.

Subscriber list information disclosure ..................................................... 1,400 4 hours ........................................... 5,600 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 60,200.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit, including small businesses.

Estimated costs per respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: The Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking seeks to clarify

and specify in more detail the

obligations of telecommunications

carriers under the customer proprietary

network information (CPNI) and

subscriber list information provisions

for the Telecommunications Act of 1996

(see 47 U.S.C. § 222). The Notice also

seeks to implement data safeguards for

information about calls received by

alarm monitoring services, pursuant to

47 U.S.C. 275(d).

SYNOPSIS OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED

RULEMAKING

A. Summary

I. Introduction

1. On February 14, 1996, several local

exchange carrier associations (the

Associations) informed the Common

Carrier Bureau (Bureau) that their

members were uncertain about their

responsibilities under the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the

1996 Act) regarding use and protection

of customer proprietary network

information (CPNI), and requested that

the Commission conduct a rulemaking

to implement the provisions of the 1996

Act. On March 5, 1996, the NYNEX

Telephone Companies (NYNEX) filed a

petition for declaratory ruling regarding

the proper interpretation of the term

‘‘telecommunications service’’ as used

in Section 222. On March 27, 1996,

U S West, Inc. (U S West) responded to

the NYNEX Petition by letter to the

Bureau Chief. In response to these and

other informal requests for guidance

from the telecommunications industry,

we initiate this proceeding to seek

comment on proposed regulations to

specify in more detail and clarify the

obligations of telecommunications

carriers with respect to the use and

protection of CPNI and other customer

information. We invite parties who wish

to respond to any of the abovereferenced industry filings to do so by

submitting comments in this

proceeding.

2. Section 702 of the 1996 Act added

a new Section 222 to the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, which sets forth, among other

things, restrictions on the use of CPNI

obtained by telecommunications

carriers in providing

telecommunications service to

customers as well as certain

requirements related to the availability

of subscriber list information. In

addition, the 1996 Act establishes a new

Section 275(d) that prohibits local

exchange carriers (LECs) from using

information obtained from calls made to

alarm monitoring service providers to

market their own alarm monitoring

services, or those provided by any other

entity, and requires the Commission to

adopt implementing regulations within

six months. Although the requirements

of Section 222 were immediately

effective, we tentatively conclude that

regulations that interpret and specify in

more detail a telecommunications

carrier’s obligations under subsections

222 (c)–(f) of the 1996 Act would be in

the public interest. In this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we

propose a regulatory regime that

balances consumer privacy and

competitive considerations to ensure

that telecommunications carriers

comply with their new statutory

obligations to maintain the privacy of

CPNI and other customer information.

3. In addition, we clarify that the

CPNI requirements the Commission

previously established as nonstructural

safeguards in the Computer II and

Computer III proceedings for the

provision of enhanced services and

customer premises equipment (CPE) by

American Telephone and Telegraph

(AT&T), the Bell Operating Companies

(BOCs), and GTE Corporation (GTE)

remain in effect, pending the outcome of

the rulemaking, to the extent that they

do not conflict with Section 222, since

nothing in the 1996 Act affects these

requirements. To the extent that the

1996 Act requires more of a carrier, or

imposes greater restrictions on a

carrier’s use of CPNI, the statute, of

course, governs. We seek comment on

whether there are statutory, competitive,

or privacy reasons that justify the

continued application of these pre-
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26485

existing rules (which are discussed in

greater detail below) to the BOCs, and

GTE. With respect to AT&T, we

tentatively conclude that these

requirements should be removed in

light of our recent decisions classifying

AT&T as a non-dominant carrier, and

the pending AT&T reorganization

separating its equipment business from

its telecommunications service

business. We also seek comment

regarding the extent to which these preexisting rules should or must be

amended in light of the language or procompetitive, deregulatory goals of the

new statute. We tentatively conclude

that it is not in the public interest, at

this time, to extend all of these preexisting CPNI rules to carriers that are

not affiliated with AT&T, the BOCs, or

GTE, and seek comment on that

conclusion. To the extent that we

conclude that we should apply more

restrictive CPNI access requirements to

certain groups of carriers, such as the

BOCs, we seek comment on the specific

market conditions or other

circumstances that would warrant

removal of those requirements in the

future.

II. Background

A. Commission CPNI Requirements

Established Prior to Enactment of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

4. Prior to enactment of the 1996 Act,

in the context of the Computer II and

Computer III proceedings, the

Commission established requirements

applicable to the use of CPNI for the

marketing of enhanced services and CPE

by AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE. The

Commission determined that such

requirements were necessary to protect

independent enhanced service

providers (ESPs) and CPE suppliers

from discrimination by AT&T, the

BOCs, and GTE. In the absence of these

safeguards, the affected carriers could

use CPNI obtained from their provision

of regulated services to gain an

anticompetitive advantage in the

unregulated CPE and enhanced services

markets. Further, the Commission found

that these CPNI requirements were in

the public interest because they were

intended to protect legitimate customer

expectations of confidentiality regarding

individually identifiable information.

The Commission defined CPNI to

encompass any information about

customers’ network services and their

use of those services that a telephone

company possessed because it provided

those network services.

5. Under the Commission’s Computer

III rules, the BOCs have been required

to abide by a request from any customer

that its CPNI be withheld from the

BOCs’ enhanced services and CPE

marketing personnel. If, however, the

customer has not requested CPNI

protection, the CPNI rules vary

depending on: (1) Whether the

information is disclosed to the BOC’s

CPE or ESP affiliate; (2) the number of

lines to which a customer subscribes;

and (3) whether the subscriber is a

residential or business customer. For

example, BOC personnel have been able

to use CPNI without prior authorization

for marketing CPE to all customers.

With respect to marketing enhanced

services, written prior authorization has

been required from customers that

subscribe to more than 20 lines. BOC

personnel could use the CPNI of

customers that subscribe to 20 or fewer

lines, however, without prior

authorization. Unaffiliated ESPs by

contrast have been required to obtain

prior customer authorization to obtain

access to CPNI maintained by the BOCs.

The Commission’s rules also imposed

on BOCs a notification obligation which

required BOCs to provide annual

written notification of CPNI rights to

multiline (2 or more lines) business

customers. In previous orders, the

Commission has required the BOCs to

implement various computerized

systems to protect against unauthorized

access by their enhanced services and

CPE personnel to restricted CPNI. In

addition, the BOCs have been required

to accommodate customer requests for

partial or temporary restrictions on

access to their CPNI. The Commission

applied these requirements to GTE in its

provision of enhanced services, but not

CPE, while declining to apply these

requirements to other independent

telephone companies.

6. Although AT&T is subject to CPNI

restrictions under Computer III, the

AT&T requirements generally are less

stringent than those applicable to the

BOCs. For example, AT&T is not

required to obtain prior authorization

from a customer with more than 20 lines

before using its CPNI to market

enhanced services. Similarly, while the

BOCs must notify multiline customers

annually of their right to restrict

disclosure of CPNI to BOC CPE

affiliates, AT&T must only provide such

notification in a one-time billing insert.

AT&T, however, must maintain

password/ID systems and other

mechanisms to restrict unauthorized

access to CPNI.

7. On March 10, 1994, the Bureau

issued a Public Notice inviting

comments on these CPNI rules in light

of the increasing alliances, acquisitions,

and mergers by and between telephone

and non-telephone companies. In

recognition of these changes, the Bureau

sought comment from the public on

whether the existing CPNI safeguards

would continue in the future to strike

the appropriate balance among

customers’ privacy interests,

competitive equity, and efficiency.

B. New Sections 222(c) and (d): CPNI

Privacy Provisions of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

8. In new Sections 222(c) and (d), the

1996 Act established requirements for

maintaining the confidentiality of CPNI

that became effective immediately upon

enactment for all telecommunications

carriers. New Section 222(f)(1) defines

CPNI as ‘‘information that relates to the

quantity, technical configuration, type,

destination, and amount of use of a

telecommunications service subscribed

to by any customer of a

telecommunications carrier, and that is

made available to the carrier by the

customer solely by virtue of the carriercustomer relationship.’’ The statute

explicitly includes within the definition

of CPNI ‘‘information contained in the

bills pertaining to telephone exchange

service or telephone toll service

received by a customer of a carrier.’’

9. New Section 222(c)(1) provides

that:

Except as required by law or with the

approval of the customer, a

telecommunications carrier that receives or

obtains [CPNI] by virtue of its provision of a

telecommunications service shall only use,

disclose, or permit access to individually

identifiable [CPNI] in its provision of (A) the

telecommunications service from which such

information is derived, or (B) services

necessary to, or used in, the provision of

such telecommunications service, including

the publishing of directories.

Section 222 further provides that ‘‘[a]

telecommunications carrier shall

disclose [CPNI], upon affirmative

written request by the customer, to any

person designated by the customer.’’

10. The 1996 Act establishes three

exceptions to the general prohibition set

forth in Section 222(c)(1). A

telecommunications carrier, either

directly or indirectly through its agents,

may use, disclose, or permit access to

individually identifiable CPNI: ‘‘(1) to

initiate, render, bill, and collect for

telecommunications services; (2) to

protect the carrier’s rights or property of

the carrier, or to protect users of those

services and other carriers from

fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of,

or subscription to, such services; or (3)

to provide any inbound telemarketing,

referral, or administrative services to the

customer for the duration of the call, if

such call was initiated by the customer

and the customer approves of the use of
26486 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

such information to provide such

service.’’

11. The 1996 Act also establishes

separate requirements for the treatment

of ‘‘Aggregate Customer Information.’’ A

telecommunications carrier, other than a

LEC, may use, disclose, or permit access

to aggregate customer information for

purposes other than those specified by

Section 222(c)(1). LECs may use

aggregate CPNI for purposes other than

those specified by Section 222(c)(1) only

if, upon reasonable request, they

provide such aggregate customer

information to other carriers or persons

on reasonable and nondiscriminatory

terms and conditions.

C. New Section 222(e): Availability of

Subscriber List Information

12. New Section 222(e) states that,

notwithstanding Sections 222(b), (c),

and (d), a telecommunications carrier

that provides telephone exchange

service must provide ‘‘subscriber list

information gathered in its capacity as

a provider of such service on a timely

and unbundled basis, under

nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates,

terms, and conditions, to any person

upon request for the purpose of

publishing directories in any format.’’

‘‘Subscriber list information’’ is defined

as ‘‘any information identifying the

listed names of subscribers of a carrier

and such subscribers’ telephone

numbers, addresses, or primary

advertising classifications * * * that

the carrier or an affiliate has published

* * * or accepted for publication in any

directory format.’’ As with new Sections

222(c) and (d), new Section 222(e) also

became effective immediately upon

enactment.

D. New Section 275(d): Use of Data

Regarding Alarm Monitoring Services

13. With respect to the provision of

alarm monitoring services, the 1996 Act

states that a LEC ‘‘may not record or use

in any fashion the occurrence or

contents of calls received by providers

of alarm monitoring services for the

purposes of marketing such services on

behalf of such [LEC], or any other

entity.’’ The new statute further requires

the Commission to establish, within six

months after the enactment of the 1996

Act, any regulations necessary to

enforce the provisions concerning LEC

use of alarm monitoring service call

information.

III. Discussion

14. As noted above, shortly after

passage of the 1996 Act, representatives

of several telecommunications carriers

and carrier associations contacted the

Bureau with questions regarding the

scope and substance of their obligations

under the Section 222 CPNI provisions

that became effective immediately upon

enactment. The Bureau also received a

letter, submitted on behalf of

associations representing a majority of

the LECs, that, inter alia, asked the

Commission to commence a rulemaking

to resolve questions concerning the

LECs’ responsibilities under the CPNI

provisions of the 1996 Act. In addition,

NYNEX filed a petition for declaratory

ruling seeking confirmation of its

interpretation of one aspect of Section

222 and U S West responded by letter

to that petition.

15. In view of these concerns

expressed by the industry, as well as our

own analysis of the 1996 Act, we

tentatively conclude that regulations

that interpret and specify in more detail

a telecommunications carrier’s

obligations under Section 222 would be

in the public interest. We seek

comments on this tentative conclusion

and on the specific requirements we

propose to adopt. Based on our reading

of the 1996 Act and its legislative

history, we believe that Congress sought

to address both privacy and competitive

concerns by enacting Section 222. In

their comments, we ask parties to

explain specifically whether their

arguments in support of, or in

opposition to, the adoption of particular

CPNI requirements are based on privacy

concerns, competitive concerns, or both.

In this proceeding, we seek to establish

promptly the regulatory framework for

carrier compliance with the CPNI

requirements contained in Section 222.

We also clarify the applicability of our

existing Computer III CPNI rules to

AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE, and seek

comment on whether these pre-existing

rules should continue to apply. In

addition, we seek comment on the

carrier requirements in Section 222(e)

for making subscriber list information

available to others upon request for the

purpose of publishing directories.

Finally, we seek comment on what

procedures LECs should develop to

comply with their Section 275(d)

obligations.

A. Scope of the Commission’s Authority

16. Section 2(b) of the 1934 Act

preserves state jurisdiction over

‘‘charges, classifications, practices,

services, facilities, or regulations for or

in connection with intrastate

communications service by wire or

radio of any carrier * * *.’’ Under

Louisiana PSC, the Commission has

authority to preempt state regulation of

intrastate telecommunications services

where such state regulation would

thwart or impede the Commission’s

exercise of its lawful authority over

interstate telecommunications services

because regulation of the interstate

aspects cannot be severed from

regulation of the intrastate aspects. We

note that, in connection with the CPNI

rules we established prior to the

enactment of the 1996 Act, we

preempted state CPNI rules that

required prior authorization

inconsistent with our own rules,

determining that such state rules would

effectively negate federal policies

promoting both carrier efficiency and

consumer benefits. The U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld

this exercise of our preemption

authority. We note that our preexisting

CPNI rules were established pursuant to

the Commission’s general regulatory

authority under the Communications

Act of 1934. The 1996 Act establishes a

specific statutory scheme governing

access to and protection of CPNI in a

way that ‘‘balance[s] both competitive

and consumer privacy interests with

respect to CPNI.’’

17. We seek comment on the extent to

which Section 222 permits states to

impose additional CPNI requirements.

We further seek comment regarding

what aspects of state regulation of CPNI

or other customer information would

enhance or impede the federal purpose.

We are particularly interested in

receiving comment on state regulation

regarding: (1) Whether written or oral

authorization is allowed, and (2) the

appropriate interpretation of the term

‘‘telecommunications service,’’ and

whether such state regulation would

enhance or impede valid federal

interests with respect to CPNI and other

customer information.

18. In addition, we seek comment

regarding whether the CPNI provisions

of Section 222 and the data safeguards

provision of Section 275(d) may by

themselves give the Commission

jurisdiction over both the interstate and

intrastate use and protection of CPNI

and other customer information with

respect to matters falling within the

scope of those sections.

19. In addition, we seek comment

regarding the scope of the Commission’s

authority with respect to the subscriber

list information provision set out in

Section 222(e), which applies to

information gathered in the provision of

‘‘telephone exchange service.’’ Because

Section 222(e) applies to ‘‘telephone

exchange service,’’ we further seek

comment regarding the respective

federal and state roles in ensuring that

subscriber list information is made

available ‘‘under nondiscriminatory and

reasonable rates, terms, and

conditions.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26487

B. Procedures for All

Telecommunications Carriers: Sections

222(c) and (d)

i. CPNI Use Prohibition

20. Absent prior customer

authorization, Section 222(c)(1)

authorizes a telecommunications carrier

to use individually identifiable CPNI

obtained from the provision of a

particular telecommunications service

solely to provide ‘‘the

telecommunications service from which

such information is derived,’’ or

services necessary to provide that

telecommunications service. Neither

Section 222 nor the definition of the

terms ‘‘telecommunications’’ and

‘‘telecommunications service’’ set forth

in the 1996 Act provide explicit

guidance as to the scope of the term ‘‘a

telecommunications service,’’ as used in

Section 222. Moreover, the Joint

Explanatory Statement in the

Conference Report is silent on this

issue. Some might contend that

Congress intended to define the term

‘‘telecommunications service’’ broadly

to include all services that the

Commission has classified as ‘‘basic’’

services. Under this interpretation,

providers of telecommunications

services could use, without prior

customer authorization, CPNI obtained

from any such service to market any

other telecommunications service. We

believe, however, that a close reading of

Section 222 does not support this

interpretation.

21. Section 222(c)(1), by its terms,

bars a telecommunications carrier from

using CPNI obtained from the provision

of ‘‘a telecommunications service’’ for

any purpose other than to provide ‘‘the

telecommunications service’’ from

which the CPNI is obtained or services

necessary to provide ‘‘such

telecommunications service.’’ The use

of the singular in this section suggests

that Congress recognized that

telecommunications carriers provide a

variety of telecommunications services

and intended, absent prior customer

approval, to prohibit a carrier from

using CPNI obtained from the provision

of one service for marketing or other

purposes in connection with the

provision of another service. This

statutory interpretation is reinforced by

other provisions of Section 222. Section

222(a) refers to ‘‘telecommunications

services’’ and Section 222(b) refers to

‘‘any telecommunications service.’’

These references support our reading

that Congress contemplated that a single

carrier provides different

telecommunications services.

22. We tentatively conclude that it

would be reasonable to interpret Section

222 as distinguishing among

telecommunications services based on

traditional service distinctions. Under

this approach, we tentatively conclude

that we should treat the following as

distinct ‘‘telecommunications services’’:

local (including short-haul toll);

interexchange (including interstate,

intrastate, and international long

distance offerings, as well as short-haul

toll); and commercial mobile radio

services (CMRS). We tentatively

conclude that short-haul toll should be

treated as both a local

telecommunications service, when

provided by a LEC, as well as an

interexchange telecommunications

service, when provided by an

interexchange carrier (IXC), because

under traditional service distinctions

both LECs and IXCs currently market

and provide short-haul toll service as

part of an integrated package with local

and interexchange services,

respectively. Under the AT&T Consent

Decree, BOC services have been subject

to LATA boundaries. See United States

v. Western Elec. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131

(D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom. Maryland

v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983)

(subsequent history omitted); 47 U.S.C.

153(25). The Commission has not

traditionally applied the interLATA and

intraLATA distinction. For purposes of

this NPRM, with respect to the BOCs,

the term ‘‘short-haul toll’’ should be

interpreted as ‘‘intraLATA toll,’’ and the

term ‘‘interexchange’’ should be

interpreted as ‘‘interLATA.’’ We seek

comment on these proposed distinctions

and on other possible service

distinctions. We further seek comment

on how changes in telecommunications

technology and regulation that allow

carriers to provide more than one

traditionally distinct service (e.g., LECs

and IXCs may begin providing each

others’ services) may impact how

carriers would implement the

requirements of Section 222 to restrict

use of CPNI from one

telecommunications service to another.

23. CPNI obtained from providing any

one of the discrete services listed above

may not be used for any purpose,

including marketing, involving any of

the other services, unless the

telecommunications carrier obtained

prior customer authorization or one of

the exceptions established by Sections

222(c) and (d) applies. We recognize

that in the rapidly evolving market for

telecommunications services, the

distinctions we propose here may

become outdated. Thus, we invite

parties to suggest other distinctions

among telecommunications services that

in their view are mandated, envisioned,

or logically consistent with the statute

for CPNI protection. We request that

parties who do so comment specifically

on the costs and benefits of the schemes

they propose, as well as the impact that

such schemes will have on both

competitive and consumer privacy

interests. We also seek comment on

whether and when technological and

market developments may require us to

revisit the issue of telecommunications

service distinctions.

24. Our interpretation also enhances

customer privacy by giving customers

greater control over CPNI use; CPNI

derived from one telecommunications

service cannot be used to provide other

services or products without prior

customer knowledge. We believe that

our interpretation of the term

‘‘telecommunications service’’ also

addresses competitive considerations.

Our reading of the 1996 Act prohibits

carriers that are established providers of

certain telecommunications services

from gaining an advantage by using

CPNI to facilitate their entry into new

telecommunications services without

obtaining prior customer authorization.

25. We seek comment on our tentative

conclusions concerning the scope of the

term ‘‘telecommunications service,’’

especially regarding the costs and

benefits associated with our

interpretation. We also seek comment

on the effect on customer privacy of

precluding the use of CPNI among

telecommunications service categories.

We further seek comment regarding how

our proposed interpretation of the term

‘‘telecommunications service’’ would

affect competition both in the provision

of telecommunications services, and the

provision of other adjacent services and

products, such as information services

and CPE.

26. The CPNI prohibition restricts

unauthorized use of CPNI for any

purpose other than those specified in

Section 222(c)(1) and the exceptions

listed in Section 222(d). For example,

CPNI obtained from the provision of any

telecommunications service may not be

used to market information services or

CPE without prior customer

authorization. Section 222(d)(1) enables

carriers to use, disclose, or permit

access to CPNI ‘‘to initiate, render, bill,

and collect for telecommunications

services.’’ We seek comment on whether

this exception permits carriers, without

prior authorization, to use a customer’s

CPNI derived from the provision of one

telecommunications service to perform

installation, maintenance, and repair for

any telecommunications service to

which that customer subscribes. We also

seek comment on whether, in the

alternative, installation, maintenance,
26488 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

and repair would qualify as ‘‘services

necessary to, or used in, the provision

of such telecommunications service,’’

under Section 222(c)(1)(B). We also seek

comment on what other services might

be ‘‘necessary to, or used in the

provision of, such telecommunications

service’’ under Section 222(c)(1)(B).

ii. Customer Notification of CPNI

Rights/Prior Authorization

27. Section 222(c)(1) authorizes a

carrier that obtains CPNI by providing a

telecommunications service to use that

CPNI for purposes unrelated to the

service from which it is obtained if the

customer approves. The statute,

however, does not specify the

procedures that a carrier must use to

obtain customer approval, nor whether

approval must be written or oral. We

seek comment on what methods carriers

may use to obtain customer

authorization for use of CPNI in

compliance with the statute.

a. Notification Requirements

28.We tentatively conclude that, in

order to ensure full compliance with the

prior authorization requirement

specified by Section 222(c)(1), we

should require a telecommunications

carrier seeking approval for CPNI use

from its customers to notify those

customers of their rights to restrict

access to their CPNI. We tentatively

conclude that customers must know that

they can restrict access to the CPNI

obtained from their use of a

telecommunications service before they

waive that right, in order to be

considered to have given approval. We

seek comment on whether we should

allow such notification to be given

orally and simultaneously with a

carrier’s attempt to seek approval for

CPNI use, or whether we should instead

require an advance written notification.

We further seek comment on what is the

least burdensome method of notification

that would meet the objectives of the

1996 Act. We note that under the

Computer III CPNI rules, we require

AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE to provide to

multiline business customers written

notification of their CPNI rights, along

with election forms to restrict or

authorize CPNI access. We seek

comment on whether we need to specify

the information that should be included

in the customer notification, and, if so,

the disclosure requirements that we

should adopt.

b. Authorization Requirements

29. Carriers may choose to obtain

written authorization from customers to

use their CPNI for purposes unrelated to

the provision of the service from which

it was obtained. This authorization

could take the form of a letter or a

billing insert sent to the customer that

contains a summary of the customer’s

CPNI rights and is accompanied by a

postcard which the customer could sign

and return to the carrier to authorize

CPNI use. Written authorization

provides greater protection to both

customers and the carrier than oral

authorization, in that the former advises

customers in writing of their CPNI rights

and provides the carrier with evidence

that it has obtained customer approval.

From a consumer protection standpoint,

written notification, which is more

specific and verifiable than oral

notification, may be preferable.

30. We seek comment on whether

Section 222(c)(1) allows carriers to

choose to use outbound telemarketing

programs to obtain oral ‘‘approval’’ from

customers for use of their CPNI. We note

that Section 222(c)(1) mandates that

carriers obtain ‘‘the approval of the

customer’’ in order to obtain access to

the customer’s CPNI, without indicating

whether the approval has to be written

or oral. There are two related provisions

of the statute which give rise to

conflicting inferences on this point. On

the one hand, Section 222(c)(2) requires

carriers to disclose CPNI to any person

designated by a customer ‘‘upon

affirmative written request by the

customer,’’ which suggests that Section

222(c)(1) allows oral approval, because

unlike 222(c)(2) it does not specifically

require written authorization.

31. On the other hand, Section

222(d)(3) regarding inbound

telemarketing provides that a

telecommunications carrier may use,

disclose, or permit access to CPNI

obtained from its customers ‘‘to provide

any inbound telemarketing, referral, or

administrative services for the duration

of the call, if such call was initiated by

the customer and the customer approves

of the use of such information to

provide such service.’’ Section 222(d)(3)

could be interpreted as suggesting that

oral consent cannot be given for a

broader purpose or a longer duration. In

the alternative, Section 222(d)(3) could

also be interpreted as permitting a

carrier to use CPNI to provide a

customer with information for the

duration of an inbound call, even if the

customer has otherwise restricted the

carrier’s use of its CPNI. We seek

comment on how Section 222(c)(1)

should be interpreted in light of Section

222(c)(2) and Section 222(d)(3). We also

seek comment on the privacy and

competitive implications of requiring

carriers to obtain prior written approval

under Section 222(c)(1) in order to

obtain access to customer CPNI, as well

as on the costs and benefits of requiring

written approval.

32. To the extent that oral approval is

allowed under 222(c)(1), we propose to

require carriers choosing to obtain oral

approval to bear the burden of proof

associated with such a scheme in the

event of a dispute. Specifically, such

carriers would be required to

demonstrate through credible evidence

that they had obtained the required

customer authorization prior to granting

access to the CPNI for purposes that

otherwise would be unlawful.

33. Additionally, we seek comment

on whether we should establish

requirements regarding: (1) How long a

customer’s CPNI use authorization

should remain valid; (2) how often

carriers may contact a customer in order

to attempt to obtain CPNI use

authorization, whether or not the

customer has requested restriction of its

CPNI; and (3) whether and to what

extent customers may authorize partial

access to their CPNI (for example,

limited to certain uses or time periods).

iii. CPNI Disclosure to Third Parties

34. Section 222(c)(2) requires carriers,

when presented with a customer’s

affirmative written request, to provide

that customer’s CPNI to any person

designated in the written authorization.

Section 222(c)(2) imposes a disclosure

requirement on carriers to ensure that

any party with customer authorization,

including unaffiliated third party

competitors, can obtain access to

individually identifiable CPNI. As such,

carriers must provide a customer’s CPNI

to any party that has obtained an

affirmative written authorization from

the customer. We seek comment with

respect to what additional mechanisms

or procedures, if any, we ought to

require telecommunications carriers to

implement to guard against

unauthorized access to CPNI by third

parties.

iv. Safeguards for Customer-Restricted

CPNI Data

35. We tentatively conclude that all

telecommunications carriers must

establish effective safeguards to protect

against unauthorized access to CPNI by

their employees or agents, or by

unaffiliated third parties. We noted

above that we have required AT&T, the

BOCs, and GTE to implement

computerized safeguards and manual

file indicators to prevent unauthorized

access to CPNI. We seek comment on

whether these requirements should

continue to apply to AT&T, the BOCs,

and GTE.

36. We tentatively conclude that we

should not now specify safeguard
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26489

requirements for all other

telecommunications carriers, but we

note that these carriers may wish to

adopt some or all of the types of

safeguards against unauthorized access

to CPNI that we applied to AT&T, the

BOCs, and GTE in Computer III, in

satisfaction of their obligation to

develop effective means to protect

restricted CPNI. We seek comment,

however, regarding whether we should

impose on all telecommunications

carriers any of the requirements

imposed on AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE,

or any other safeguard designed to

protect against unauthorized access to

restricted CPNI, and will adopt such

requirements if the record indicates a

need for them.

v. Aggregate CPNI

37. The aggregate CPNI provisions of

Section 222(c)(3) permit

telecommunications carriers, other than

LECs, to use aggregate CPNI for

purposes other than providing

telecommunications services. LECs,

however, may use aggregate CPNI for

purposes other than providing

telecommunications service only if the

aggregate CPNI is made available to

others on a reasonable and

nondiscriminatory basis. In Computer

III, we required the subject carriers to

notify third parties about the availability

of aggregate CPNI used by these carriers

by publishing notices in trade

publications or newsletters. We seek

comment on whether, in addition to the

statutory requirements of Section 222,

we should also require all LECs to

provide similar notification to others

regarding the availability of aggregate

CPNI, on a reasonable and

nondiscriminatory basis prior to using

such aggregate CPNI themselves.

C. Applicability of Computer III CPNI

Requirements

38. We conclude that the 1996 Act

does not prohibit the Commission from

enforcing CPNI requirements that are

not inconsistent with the new statutory

provisions, since nothing in the 1996

Act affects these requirements. We

recognize that in certain respects our

existing Computer III requirements

place greater restrictions than the 1996

Act on CPNI access by AT&T, the BOCs,

and GTE for the provision of enhanced

services and CPE. Under our reading of

the new statute, these additional

restrictions will continue to apply to

those carriers, pending the outcome of

this rulemaking.

39. AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE must

continue to provide annual written

notification to customers about CPNI

rights before using this CPNI to market

enhanced services. The current

retention of this requirement does not

supersede the new statutory

requirement that all

telecommunications carriers, including

AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE, obtain prior

authorization before using CPNI to

engage in any activity other than

providing the service from which the

CPNI was derived. The BOCs and GTE

must also continue to obtain prior

written authorization from customers

with more than twenty lines before

using their CPNI to market enhanced

services. With respect to use of CPNI for

marketing CPE, AT&T must continue to

notify customers in a one-time billing

insert before using the CPNI of these

customers to market CPE. Similarly, the

BOCs must continue to notify multiline

customers annually about their CPNI

rights before using this CPNI to market

CPE. In addition, AT&T, the BOCs, and

GTE must maintain any previously

approved mechanisms (i.e, computer

password systems, filing mechanisms)

to restrict unauthorized internal access

to CPNI.

40. We do not propose to extend our

pre-existing Computer III CPNI

requirements, as modified by the 1996

Act, to other telecommunications

carriers, because we tentatively

conclude that these additional CPNI

restrictions are not necessary to secure

the public interest objectives of the 1996

Act. The Commission’s CPNI rules were

established in the context of the

Computer III proceeding, in which the

Commission adopted various

nonstructural safeguards to protect

independent ESPs and CPE suppliers

from discrimination by AT&T, the

BOCs, and GTE. The Commission

specifically sought to prohibit these

carriers from using CPNI obtained from

their provision of basic regulated

services to gain an anticompetitive

advantage in the unregulated CPE and

enhanced services markets. In that

proceeding, we determined that,

because AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE

could gain anticompetitive advantages

in this manner, their use of CPNI must

be restricted.

41. We, however, recognize that some

of the anticompetitive concerns we

sought to address through the

establishment of our CPNI rules may

now be addressed by the new Section

222. In such light, we seek comment on

which, if any, of our Computer III CPNI

rules may no longer be necessary as a

result of new Section 222. For example,

we seek comment on the necessity for

continuing to require AT&T, the BOCs,

and GTE to provide written notification

to multiline customers of their CPNI

rights. Given that the Computer III CPNI

rules are part of a scheme of

nonstructural safeguards, parties should

address how changing the CPNI rules

might influence the effect of other

Computer III requirements. Parties

should comment on whether there are

privacy or competitive reasons for

continuing to apply these specific preexisting requirements to these carriers,

as well as on the costs and benefits of

maintaining these requirements. We

also invite parties to comment on what,

if any, modifications to our current

CPNI rules should be adopted to further

the pro-competitive, deregulatory goals

of the 1996 Act, in addition to those

discussed in this NPRM.

42. We further seek comment on

whether AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE

continue to possess a competitive

advantage with respect to access to and

use of customer CPNI, as well as

whether any other entities, such as

independent LECs, now possess similar

advantages. In particular, it appears that

our recent decisions classifying AT&T

as a non-dominant carrier, and the

pending AT&T reorganization

separating its equipment business from

its telecommunications service

business, may justify removal of

Computer III CPNI requirements for

AT&T. We tentatively conclude that

removal of these requirements is now

justified. We further seek comment

regarding whether privacy, competitive

concerns, or any other considerations,

justify special regulatory treatment of

AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE. Further, to

the extent that commenters believe

differential regulatory treatment is

justified for certain carriers, we seek

comment on whether such differential

treatment should be permanent or

limited in duration, and, if limited,

what sunset provisions should apply.

D. Section 222(e): Availability of

Subscriber List Information

43. Section 222(e) states that a

telecommunications carrier that

provides ‘‘telephone exchange service’’

shall provide subscriber list information

‘‘gathered in its capacity as a provider

of such service on a timely and

unbundled basis, under

nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates,

terms, and conditions, to any person

upon request for the purpose of

publishing directories in any format.’’

We interpret Section 222(e) to require

not only LECs, but also any

telecommunications carrier, including

an IXC or cable operator, for example,

to meet the requirements of this section

to the extent such carrier provides

telephone exchange service. We seek

comment on this interpretation.
26490 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

44. Subscriber list information is

defined in Section 222(f)(3) as any

information ‘‘identifying the listed

names of subscribers of a carrier and

such subscribers’ telephone numbers,

addresses, or primary advertising

classifications (as such classifications

are assigned at the time of the

establishment of such service)’’ or any

combination of such information, that

the ‘‘carrier or an affiliate has published

* * * or accepted for publication in any

directory format.’’ We seek comment on

what regulations, if any, are necessary to

clarify the type and/or categories of

information that must be made available

under this section. In particular, we

seek comment on the meaning of

‘‘primary advertising classifications,’’

since the statute does not specify what

is meant by this term. We also note that

new Section 274(h)(2)(i) of the 1996 Act

excepts from the definition of

‘‘electronic publishing’’ the provision of

‘‘directory assistance that provides

names, addresses, and telephone

numbers and does not include

advertising.’’ We tentatively conclude

that the term ‘‘primary advertising

classifications’’ in Section 222(e) is used

differently than the term ‘‘advertising’’

in Section 274(h)(2)(i), and that

therefore subscriber list information

does not fall within the definition of

electronic publishing. We seek comment

on this tentative conclusion.

45. We also seek comment on what

regulations or procedures may be

necessary to implement the requirement

that subscriber list information be

provided ‘‘on a timely and unbundled

basis, under nondiscriminatory and

reasonable rates, terms, and

conditions.’’ Commenting parties

should state specifically what

regulations or procedures, if any, should

be required and how Section 222(e)

makes them necessary. In particular,

commenters should comment on the

format in which the information should

be provided and how it should be

unbundled.

46. We also seek comment on what

safeguards may be necessary to ensure

that a person seeking subscriber list

information is doing so for the specified

purpose of ‘‘publishing directories in

any format.’’ While the Joint

Explanatory Statement states that the

purpose of Section 222(e) is to guarantee

‘‘independent publishers access to

subscriber list information’’ upon

request, we seek comment on how and

to what extent a telecommunications

carrier subject to this section may seek

authorization from a person or entity

requesting such information. Parties

should comment on whether such

requests must be in writing or whether

they can be made orally.

E. Section 275(d): Alarm Monitoring

Procedures for LECs

47. Section 275(d) prohibits a LEC

from recording or using in any fashion

‘‘the occurrence or content of calls

received by providers of alarm

monitoring services for the purposes of

marketing such services on behalf of

such [LEC], or any other entity.’’ Thus,

Section 275(d) restricts LECs from using

the information described in that

section for marketing another alarm

monitoring service, either their own

service or a service offered by another

affiliated or unaffiliated entity. We

tentatively conclude that a customer’s

authorization under Section 222(c)(1)

will not extend to any records

concerning the occurrence of calls

received by alarm monitoring service

providers. Although call content

information is not considered CPNI, we

note that, pursuant to Section 275(d),

LECs may not use information

concerning the ‘‘content of calls’’

received by providers of alarm

monitoring services to market such

services. We seek comment on what

procedures LECs should develop to

comply with Section 275(d).

IV. Conclusion

48. In this notice, we seek comment

on rules to ensure compliance by

telecommunications carriers with the

provisions relating to carrier use of and

access to CPNI and other customer

information established by the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 in new

Sections 222(c)–(f) and 275(d), and to

secure the privacy and competitive

protections mandated by Congress. We

invite comment on our interpretation of

the requirements imposed by Section

222(c)–(f) and Section 275(d), as well as

our tentative conclusions regarding

regulations necessary to ensure carrier

compliance with these requirements

and to more fully effectuate the

statutory policies. We also request

parties to specify whether their

comments on our proposed regulatory

requirements address privacy or

competitive concerns, and to comment

on the appropriate duration of such

regulatory requirements. Any party

disagreeing with our tentative

conclusions should explain with

specificity in terms of costs and benefits

its position and suggestions for

alternative regulatory policies.

V. Procedural Issues

A. Ex Parte Presentations

49. This is a non-restricted noticeand-comment rulemaking proceeding.

Ex parte presentations are permitted,

except during the Sunshine Agenda

period, provided that they are disclosed

as provided in the Commission’s rules.

See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202,

1.1203, 1.1206.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

50. Pursuant to the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–

612, the Commission’s Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis with respect to the

NPRM is as follows:

51. Reason for Action: The

Commission is issuing this NPRM

seeking comment on proposed

regulations to ensure

telecommunications carriers’

compliance with requirements for the

use and protection of customer

proprietary network information (CPNI)

and other customer information set forth

in the Telecommunications Act of 1996,

Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

52. Objectives: The objective of the

NPRM is to provide an opportunity for

public comment and to provide a record

for a Commission decision on the issues

stated above. The Commission is

committed to reducing the regulatory

burdens on small communications

services companies whenever possible,

consistent with our other public interest

responsibilities.

53. Legal basis: The NPRM is adopted

pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 222, 275, and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,

154, 222, 275, and 303(r).

54. Description, potential impact, and

number of small entities affected: Any

rule changes that might occur as a result

of this proceeding could impact small

business entities, as defined in Section

601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

After evaluating the comments in this

proceeding, the Commission will further

examine the impact of any rule changes

on small entities and set forth findings

in the Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. The Secretary shall send a

copy of this NPRM to the Chief Counsel

for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration in accordance with

Section 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96–354, 94

Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981).

55. Reporting, recordkeeping and

other compliance requirement: None.

56. Federal rules that overlap,

duplicate or conflict with the

Commission’s proposal: None.

57. Any significant alternatives

minimizing impact on small entities and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26491

consistent with stated objectives: The

NPRM solicits comments on a variety of

alternatives.

58. Comments are solicited: Written

comments are requested on this Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. These

comments must be filed in accordance

with the same filing deadlines set for

comments on the other issues in this

NPRM but they must have a separate

and distinct heading designating them

as responses to the Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall

send a copy of the Notice to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory

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

C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 Analysis

59. This NPRM contains either a

proposed or modified 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 NPRM, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.

L. No. 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as

other comments on this NPRM; OMB

comments are due 60 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.

D. Comment Filing Procedures

60. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R.

§§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may

file comments on or before June 11,

1996 and reply comments on or before

June 26, 1996. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

and six (6) 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 (11)

copies. 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. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 1919 M Street, NW, Room 239,

Washington, DC. 20554.

61. In order to facilitate review of

comments and reply comments, both by

parties and by Commission staff, we

require that comments be no longer than

twenty-five (25) pages and reply

comments be no longer than fifteen (15)

pages. Copies of specific proposed rules

that conform to the C.F.R. format,

relevant state orders, sample CPNI

notification and authorization forms or

letters, and empirical economic studies

will not be counted against these page

limits. Comments and reply comments

must also comply with Section 1.49 and

all other applicable sections of the

Commission’s Rules. See 47 C.F.R.

§ 1.49. However, we require here that a

summary be included with all

comments and reply comments,

regardless of length, although a

summary that does not exceed three

pages will not count toward the page

limit for comments or reply comments.

This summary may be paginated

separately from the rest of the pleading

(e.g., as ‘‘i, ii’’).

62. 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 addressed above. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit

them to Janice Myles of the Common

Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, NW.,

Room 544, Washington, DC 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

labelled 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.

63. Written comments by the public

on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due June 11,

1996. Written comments must be

submitted by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/

or modified information collections on

or before 60 days after date of

publication in the Federal Register. In

addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Dorothy

Conway, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to dconway@fcc.gov and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainllt@al.eop.gov.

VI. Ordering Clauses

64. Accordingly, it is ordered that

pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 222, 275, and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,

154, 222, 275, and 303(r), a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking is hereby

Adopted.

65. It is further ordered that, the

Secretary shall send a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including the regulatory flexibility

certification, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration, in accordance with

paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

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

(1981).

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13329 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96–62; FCC 96–124]

Broadcast Blanketing Interference

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes

consolidation of FCC regulations to

combine the blanketing interference

rules into a new single rule section for

AM, FM, and TV broadcast services.

This rulemaking proceeding also

proposes to amend signal contour

determinations in establishing AM radio

and TV broadcast blanketing areas,

provide detailed clarification of

broadcast licensee’s responsibility in

resolving blanketing interference, and

provide a list of protected and nonprotected devices.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before June 25, 1996 and reply

comments filed on or before July 25,

1996. Written comments by the public