[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26483-26491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13329]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
[email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 
725--17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

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 [email protected].

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

[[Page 26484]]

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of                                                              
  Information collection requirement    respondents     Estimated time per            Total annual  burden      
                                         (approx.)           response                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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                3,000  5 hours.................  15,000 hours.                    
 restricted CPNI.                                                                                               
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. Sec. 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 above-referenced 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-

[[Page 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 pre-existing rules should or must be amended in 
light of the language or pro-competitive, 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 pre-existing 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 carrier-customer 
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

[[Page 26486]]

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.''

[[Page 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,

[[Page 26488]]

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

[[Page 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 pre-existing 
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.

[[Page 26490]]

    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 notice-and-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. Secs. 1.1202, 1.1203, 
1.1206.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    50. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 
Secs. 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. Secs. 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

[[Page 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. Secs. 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. Sec. 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 [email protected] and to 
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

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. Secs. 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