Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 175 / Friday, September 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55297 

Flexibility Analysis was prepared in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in 

conjunction with the adoption of 

Release No. 34–42266, approved by the 

Commission on December 22, 1999, 

which adopted Rule 10–01 of 

Regulation S–X under the Securities Act 

of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934. Comments to the proposing 

release and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis were considered at that time. 

* * * * * 

Rules and Forms Administered by the 

Division of Investment Management 

Title: Rule 17j–1. 

Citation: 17 CFR 270.17j–1. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq., 

80a–17(j), 80a–37(a). 

Description: Rule 17j–1 under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 

(‘‘Act’’) prohibits fraudulent, deceptive 

or manipulative acts by persons 

affiliated with a registered investment 

company (‘‘fund’’) or with the fund’s 

investment adviser or principal 

underwriter in connection with their 

personal securities transactions in 

securities held or to be acquired by the 

fund. The rule requires 17j–1 

organizations to adopt codes of ethics 

reasonably designed to prevent fraud 

and requires fund personnel to report 

their personal securities transactions to 

their 17j–1 organization. 

Prior Commission Determination 

Under 5 U.S.C. 601: A Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis was prepared in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in 

conjunction with the adoption of 

Release No. IC–23958, which was 

approved by the Commission on Aug. 

20, 1999. Comments to the proposing 

release and any comments to the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis were 

considered at that time. 

* * * * * 

Title: Rule 154. 

Citation: 17 CFR 230.154. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. 

Description: Rule 154 under the 

Securities Act of 1933 permits an issuer 

or broker-dealer that has an obligation to 

deliver a prospectus to multiple persons 

at a single address to satisfy that 

obligation by delivering a single 

prospectus, subject to certain 

conditions. 

Prior Commission Determination 

Under 5 U.S.C. 601: A Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis was prepared in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in 

conjunction with the adoption of 

Release No. IC–24123, which was 

approved by the Commission on 

November 4, 1999. Comments to the 

proposing release and any comments to 

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis were considered at that time. 

* * * * * 

Rules and Forms Administered by the 

Division of Trading and Markets 

Title: Rule 10b–18. 

Citation: 17 CFR 240.10b–18. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c, 

78i(a)(6), 78j(b), 78m(e), 78o(c) and 

78w(a). 

Description: Rule 10b–18 under the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 

10b–18 provides a ‘‘safe harbor’’ from 

liability for manipulation under 

Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act, and Rule 10b–5 

thereunder, when an issuer or affiliated 

purchaser of the issuer bids for or buys 

shares of its common stock in 

compliance with the Rule’s conditions. 

Prior Commission Determination 

Under 5 U.S.C. 601: A Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis was prepared in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in 

conjunction with the adoption of 

Release No. 34–41905, which was 

approved by the Commission on Sept. 

23, 1999. Comments to the proposing 

release and any comments to the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis were 

considered at that time. 

* * * * * 

Title: Rules 15b3–1, 15Ba2–2, and 

15Ca2–1. 

Citation: 17 CFR 240.15b3–1, 

240.15Ba2–2, and 240.15Ca2–1. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78o(a), 78o(b), 

78o–4(a)(2), 78o–5(a)(2), and 78w(a). 

Description: Rule 15b3–1 under the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 governs 

amendments to applications for 

registration as a broker or a dealer. Rule 

15Ba2–2 under the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 governs applications for 

registration of non-bank municipal 

securities dealers whose business is 

exclusively intrastate. Rule 15Ca2–1 

under the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 governs applications for 

registrations as a government securities 

broker or government securities dealer. 

Prior Commission Determination 

Under 5 U.S.C. 601: A Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis was prepared in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in 

conjunction with the adoption of 

Release No. 34–41594, which was 

approved by the Commission on July 2, 

1999. Comments to the proposing 

release and any comments to the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis were 

considered at that time. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: September 3, 2010. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22574 Filed 9–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Chapter I 

[GN Docket No. 09–191; WC Docket No. 

07–52; DA 10–1667] 

Further Inquiry Into Two UnderDeveloped Issues in the Open Internet 

Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission’s Wireline Competition 

and Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureaus (collectively, the Bureaus) seek 

comment on two issues in the open 

Internet proceeding that merit further 

development. The first issue is the 

relationship between open Internet 

protections and services that are 

provided over the same last-mile 

facilities as broadband Internet access 

service (commonly called ‘‘managed’’ or 

‘‘specialized’’ services). The second is 

the application of open Internet rules to 

mobile wireless Internet access services, 

which have unique characteristics 

related to technology, associated 

application and device markets, and 

consumer usage. The intended effect is 

to develop a more detailed record in the 

Open Internet proceeding. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

October 12, 2010 and reply comments 

are due on or before November 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket No. 09–191 and 

WC Docket No. 07–52, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail ecfs@fcc.gov, and include 

the following words in the body of the 

message: ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

Include the docket numbers in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

55298 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 175 / Friday, September 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and Priority Mail): 9300 East Hampton 

Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Kehoe, Competition Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at 202–418–1580 or 

william.kehoe@fcc.gov, or John Spencer, 

Broadband Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, at 202– 

418–2487 or john.spencer@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Bureaus’ Public Notice 

in GN Docket No. 09–191 and WC 

Docket No. 07–52, DA 10–1667, released 

on September 1, 2010. The Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking initiating this 

proceeding, Preserving the Open 

Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, 

GN Docket No. 09–191, WC Docket No. 

07–52, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

74 FR 62638, November 30, 2009 (Open 

Internet NPRM) addressed two issues in 

less detail than many other issues, and 

the Commission’s analysis would 

benefit from further development of 

these issues in the record. The Bureaus 

therefore found it appropriate to further 

inquire into these areas. The complete 

text of this document is available on the 

Commission’s Internet site at 

www.fcc.gov and for public inspection 

Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 

11:30 a.m. in the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau Reference Information Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. The full text of 

the Public Notice may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– 

488–5300, facsimile 202–488–5563, 

e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, or via its 

Web site at http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

Interested parties may file comments 

and reply comments on or before the 

dates indicated on the first page of this 

document. When filing comments, 

please reference GN Docket No. 09–191 

and WC Docket No. 07–52. 

Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

copies. Comments filed through the 

ECFS can be sent as an electronic file 

via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/. Generally, only one copy of 

an electronic submission must be filed. 

If multiple docket or rulemaking 

numbers appear in the caption of the 

proceeding, commenters must transmit 

one electronic copy of the comments to 

each docket or rulemaking number 

referenced in the caption. In completing 

the transmittal screen, commenters 

should include their full name, U.S. 

Postal Service mailing address, and the 

applicable docket or rulemaking 

numbers. Parties may also submit an 

electronic comment by Internet e-mail. 

To get filing instructions for e-mail 

comments, commenters should send an 

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should 

include the following words in the body 

of the message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample 

form and directions will be sent in 

reply. Parties who choose to file by 

paper must file an original and four 

copies of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, 

commenters must submit two additional 

copies for each additional docket or 

rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). Parties are strongly encouraged to 

file comments electronically using the 

Commission’s ECFS. All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

Effective December 28, 2009, all handdelivered or messenger-delivered paper 

filings for the Commission’s Secretary 

must be delivered to FCC Headquarters 

at 445 12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Parties shall also serve one copy with 

the Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals 

II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, 202–488–5300, 

or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com. 

Documents in GN Docket No. 09–191 

and WC Docket No. 07–52 will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying during business hours at the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

documents may also be purchased from 

BCPI, telephone 202–488–5300, 

facsimile 202–488–5563, TTY 202–488– 

5562, e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

Synopsis of Public Notice 

1. In order to promote innovation, 

investment, competition, and free 

expression, and to protect and empower 

consumers, in late 2009 the Commission 

issued the Open Internet NPRM. That 

NPRM sought public comment on rules 

that would codify the four principles 

adopted in Appropriate Framework for 

Broadband Access to the Internet Over 

Wireline Facilities et al., CC Docket Nos. 

02–33, 01–337, 95–20, 98–10, GN 

Docket No. 00–185, CS Docket No. 02– 

52, Policy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd 14986 

(2005) (Internet Policy Statement) and 

strengthen them by prohibiting 

broadband Internet access providers 

from treating lawful traffic in a 

discriminatory manner, and by 

requiring providers to be transparent 

regarding their network management 

practices. The discussion generated by 

the Commission’s Open Internet 

proceeding appears to have narrowed 

disagreement on many of the key 

elements of the framework proposed in 

the NPRM: First, that broadband 

providers should not prevent users from 

sending and receiving the lawful 

content of their choice, using the lawful 

applications and services of their 

choice, and connecting the nonharmful 

devices of their choice to the network, 

at least on fixed or wireline broadband 

platforms. Second, that broadband 

providers should be transparent 

regarding their network management 

practices. Third, that with respect to the 

handling of lawful traffic, some form of 

anti-discrimination protection is 

appropriate, at least on fixed or wireline 

broadband platforms. Fourth, that 

broadband providers must be able to 

reasonably manage their networks, 

including through appropriate and 

tailored mechanisms that reduce the 

effects of congestion or address traffic 

that is unwanted by users or harmful to 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 175 / Friday, September 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55299 

the network. Fifth, that in light of rapid 

technological and market change, 

enforcing high-level rules of the road 

through case-by-case adjudication, 

informed by engineering expertise, is a 

better policy approach than 

promulgating detailed, prescriptive 

rules that may have consequences that 

are difficult to foresee. 

2. There are two complex issues, 

however, that merit further inquiry. The 

first is the relationship between open 

Internet protections and services that 

are provided over the same last-mile 

facilities as broadband Internet access 

service (commonly called ‘‘managed’’ or 

‘‘specialized’’ services). The second is 

the application of open Internet rules to 

mobile wireless Internet access services, 

which have unique characteristics 

related to technology, associated 

application and device markets, and 

consumer usage. The NPRM raised both 

of these issues but addressed them in 

less detail than many other issues, and 

the Commission’s analysis would 

benefit from further development of 

these issues in the record. The Bureaus 

therefore find it appropriate to further 

inquire into these areas. 

A. Specialized Services 

3. In the NPRM, the Commission 

recognized that broadband providers 

may provide other services over the 

same last-mile facilities used to provide 

broadband Internet access service. 

These services may drive additional 

private investment in networks and 

provide consumers new and valued 

services. However, there appear to be 

three general areas of concern about 

how to maintain the investmentpromoting benefits of specialized 

services while protecting the Internet’s 

openness: The NPRM used the term 

‘‘managed or specialized services’’ to 

describe the services that we here call 

‘‘specialized services.’’ We avoid the 

term ‘‘managed services’’ to prevent 

confusion with services that have long 

been provided by communications 

service providers to enterprise 

customers, which may include 

managing computing and 

communications facilities on behalf of 

such customers. 

(1) Bypassing Open Internet 

Protections: Open Internet protections 

may be weakened if broadband 

providers offer specialized services that 

are substantially similar to, but do not 

technically meet the definition of, 

broadband Internet access service, and if 

consumer protections do not apply to 

such services. A similar concern may 

arise if specialized services are 

integrated into broadband Internet 

access service; for example, if a 

broadband provider offers broadband 

Internet access service bundled with a 

‘‘specialized service’’ that provides 

prioritized access to a particular Web 

site. 

(2) Supplanting the Open Internet: 

Broadband providers may constrict or 

fail to continue expanding the network 

capacity allocated to broadband Internet 

access service in order to provide more 

capacity for specialized services. If this 

occurs, and particularly if one or more 

specialized services serve as substitutes 

for the delivery of content, applications, 

and services over broadband Internet 

access service, the open Internet may 

wither as an open platform for 

competition, innovation, and free 

expression. 

(3) Anti-competitive Conduct: 

Broadband providers may have the 

ability and incentive to engage in anticompetitive conduct with respect to 

specialized services, particularly if they 

are vertically integrated providers of 

content, applications, or services; or if 

they enter into business arrangements 

with third-party content, application, or 

service providers concerning 

specialized service offerings. Such 

discriminatory conduct could harm 

competition among, and private 

investment in, content, application, and 

service providers. 

These concerns, particularly the 

second and third, may be exacerbated 

by worries that due to limited choice 

among broadband Internet access 

service providers, consumers may not 

be able to effectively exercise their 

preferences for broadband Internet 

access service (or content, applications, 

or services available through broadband 

Internet access service) over specialized 

services. 

4. There appear to be at least six 

general policy approaches to addressing 

these concerns while promoting private 

investment and encouraging the 

development and deployment of new 

services that benefit consumers. These 

approaches could be employed alone or 

in combination: 

(A) Definitional Clarity: Define 

broadband Internet access service 

clearly and perhaps broadly, and apply 

open Internet rules to all forms of 

broadband Internet access service. 

Specialized services would be those 

services with a different scope or 

purpose than broadband Internet access 

service (i.e., which do not meet the 

definition of broadband Internet access 

service), and would not be subject to the 

rules applicable to broadband Internet 

access service. But such services could 

be addressed through one or more of the 

below policy approaches, or, 

alternatively, the Commission could 

address the policy implications of such 

services if and when such services are 

further developed in the market. 

(B) Truth in Advertising: Prohibit 

broadband providers from marketing 

specialized services as broadband 

Internet access service or as a substitute 

for such service, and require providers 

to offer broadband Internet access 

service as a stand-alone service, separate 

from specialized services, in addition to 

any bundled offerings. 

(C) Disclosure: Require providers to 

disclose information sufficient to enable 

consumers, third parties, and the 

Commission to evaluate and report on 

specialized services, including their 

effects on the capacity of and the 

markets for broadband Internet access 

service and Internet-based content, 

applications, and services. The 

Commission or Congress could then 

take action if necessary. 

(D) Non-exclusivity in Specialized 

Services: Require that any commercial 

arrangements with a verticallyintegrated affiliate or a third party for 

the offering of specialized services be 

offered on the same terms to other third 

parties. 

(E) Limit Specialized Service 

Offerings: Allow broadband providers to 

offer only a limited set of new 

specialized services, with functionality 

that cannot be provided via broadband 

Internet access service, such as a 

telemedicine application that requires 

enhanced quality of service. 

(F) Guaranteed Capacity for 

Broadband Internet Access Service: 

Require broadband providers to 

continue providing or expanding 

network capacity allocated to broadband 

Internet access service, regardless of any 

specialized services they choose to offer. 

Relatedly, prohibit specialized services 

from inhibiting the performance of 

broadband Internet access services at 

any given time, including during 

periods of peak usage. 

5. The Bureaus seek comment on each 

of these concerns and suggested policy 

responses, as well as any other concerns 

or policies regarding specialized 

services that the Commission should 

consider. Which policies will best 

protect the open Internet and maintain 

incentives for private investment and 

deployment of innovative services that 

benefit consumers? In addition, the 

Bureaus seek comment on whether 

specialized services provided over 

mobile wireless platforms raise unique 

issues. 

B. Application of Open Internet 

Principles to Mobile Wireless Platforms 

6. The NPRM seeks comment on 

‘‘how, to what extent, and when’’ 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

55300 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 175 / Friday, September 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

openness principles should apply to 

mobile wireless platforms, with a 

particular emphasis on furthering 

innovation, private investment, 

competition, and freedom of expression. 

In light of developments since the 

issuance of the NPRM, it is now 

appropriate to update the record on 

certain questions related to the 

application of openness principles to 

wireless. Mobile broadband providers 

such as AT&T Mobility and Leap 

Wireless (Cricket) have recently 

introduced pricing plans that charge 

different prices based on the amount of 

data a customer uses. The emergence of 

these new business models may reduce 

mobile broadband providers’ incentives 

to employ more restrictive network 

management practices that could run 

afoul of open Internet principles. 

Additionally, Verizon and Google 

issued a proposal for open Internet 

legislation that would exclude wireless, 

except for proposed transparency 

requirements. 

1. Transparency 

7. The Bureaus seek comment on 

what disclosure requirements are 

appropriate to ensure that consumers 

and content, application, service, and 

device providers can make informed 

choices regarding use of mobile 

broadband networks. What information 

should be disclosed about device and 

application requirements and 

certification processes? Are there any 

existing models that could provide 

guidance for shaping such rules? For 

instance, the Commission adopted 

transparency requirements for licensees 

in the 700 MHz Upper C Block. 

2. Devices 

8. The Bureaus seek further comment 

on the ability of new technologies and 

business models to facilitate nonharmful attachment of third-party 

devices to mobile wireless networks. 

Can adherence to industry standards for 

mobile wireless networks ensure nonharmful technical interoperability 

between mobile broadband devices and 

networks? Will deployment of nextgeneration technologies (e.g., LTE) 

further facilitate interoperability? To the 

extent that compliance with technical 

standards needs to be validated through 

laboratory testing, could such testing be 

conducted through independent 

authorized test centers? Were the 

Commission to require mobile providers 

to allow any non-harmful device to 

connect to their network, subject to 

reasonable network management, how 

would mobile broadband provider 

conduct have to change, if at all, in light 

of existing device certification 

programs? 

9. As noted above, some mobile 

providers have introduced usage-based 

data pricing. To what extent do these 

business models mitigate concerns 

about congestion of scarce network 

capacity by third-party devices? 

3. Applications 

10. The Bureaus seek comment on 

how best to maximize consumer choice, 

innovation, and freedom of expression 

in the mobile application space, while 

ensuring continued private investment 

and competition in mobile wireless 

broadband services. To what extent 

should mobile wireless providers be 

permitted to prevent or restrict the 

distribution or use of types of 

applications that may intensively use 

network capacity, or that cause other 

network management challenges? Is the 

use of reasonable network management 

sufficient, by itself or in combination 

with usage-based pricing, to address 

such concerns? Should mobile wireless 

providers have less discretion with 

respect to applications that compete 

with services the provider offers? How 

should the ability of developers to load 

software applications onto devices for 

development or prototyping purposes be 

protected? 

11. The Bureaus also seek comment 

on the extent to which certain 

application distribution models—such 

as a mobile broadband Internet access 

service provider acting as both a 

network operator and an app store 

provider/curator—may affect consumer 

choice. If providers were to be 

prohibited from denying or restricting 

access to applications in their capacity 

as network providers, should they 

nevertheless have discretion regarding 

what apps are included in app stores 

that they operate? Are there safe-harbor 

criteria that, if met by a provider, would 

ameliorate potential concerns? For 

example, if a provider’s customer had a 

choice of several app store providers 

that offered applications that could be 

downloaded onto the customer’s mobile 

device, would that adequately mitigate 

concerns about potentially anticompetitive or anti-consumer effects of 

a provider excluding applications from 

its own app store? 

12. Finally, the Bureaus seek 

comment on how differences between 

web-based and native applications 

should inform the Commission’s 

analysis. Should a mobile provider have 

more discretion to restrict consumers’ 

downloading and/or use of native 

applications than they should with 

respect to web-based applications? 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The NPRM in this proceeding 

included an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential 

impact of the Commission’s proposal on 

small entities. The matters discussed in 

the Bureaus’ Public Notice do not 

modify in any way the IRFA the 

Commission previously issued. 

However, the Commission received 

comments concerning the IRFA with 

regard to matters discussed in this 

Public Notice. Parties that filed 

comments on the IRFA, and anyone 

else, are invited to file comments on the 

IRFA in light of this additional notice. 

Procedural Matters 

Ex Parte Presentations. This matter 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance with 

the ex parte rules. 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 twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in § 1.1206(b) of the rules. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Kirk Burgee, 

Chief of Staff, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22629 Filed 9–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS