58700 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 255

[Docket No. OST–97–2881]

RIN 2105–AC65

Computer Reservations System (CRS)

Regulations

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, (DOT).

ACTION: Notice extending comment

period.

SUMMARY: The Department has initiated

a rulemaking to determine whether it

should continue or modify its existing

rules governing airline computer

reservations systems (CRSs). On

September 10, 1997, the Department

published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking asking for

comments on that matter. The

Department is now extending the due

date for comments and reply comments

on the advance notice to December 9,

1997, and January 23, 1998, from the

original dates of November 10 and

December 9, 1997.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before December 9, 1997. Reply

comments must be submitted on or

before January 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be filed in

Room PL–401, Docket OST–97–2881,

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400

7th St. SW., Washington , DC 20590.

Late filed comments will be considered

to the extent possible. To facilitate

consideration of comments, each

commenter should file six copies of its

comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Ray, Office of the General

Counsel, 400 Seventh St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–4731.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department’s rules governing CRS

operations—14 CFR Part 255—will

expire on December 31, 1997, unless the

Department readopts them or changes

the rules’ termination date to a later

date. The Department published an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

to begin a proceeding for reexamining

the rules and determining whether they

should be readopted and, if so, whether

they should be changed. 62 FR 47606,

September 10, 1997. The advance notice

made comments and reply comments

due on November 10 and December 9,

respectively. Sabre and Worldspan, two

of the computer reservations systems,

asked us to allow the parties to have an

additional thirty to sixty days for

preparing both their comments and

reply comments. Sabre and Worldspan

allege that the preparation of adequate

comments on the complex issues

presented in this rulemaking requires

more time than the comment periods

established by the advance notice. In

addition, American Airlines has orally

requested more time for preparing its

responses to the advance notice.

We have determined that it would be

reasonable to give commenters more

time for preparing their responses to the

advance notice. The issues are complex,

and some major issues, such as the

impact of the Internet on airline

distribution and the computer

reservations system business, have not

been addressed by us before in any

formal proceeding. At the same time, we

should complete our reexamination of

the CRS rules as promptly as possible,

given the need to update the rules in

light of the changes in airline

distribution and the CRS business since

our adoption of the current rules in

1992.

We will therefore give commenters an

additional thirty days for the

commments and fifteen days for reply

comments.

These extensions should give them

ample time for preparing responses to

our advance notice and the issues raised

there and to the comments filed by other

parties. The longer extensions requested

by Sabre and Worldspan seem

unnecessary—we did not set such

lengthy comment periods when we last

reexamined the CRS rules, and all major

industry participants have been aware

for some time that we would be

conducting a proceeding to reexamine

the need for the rules.

Since neither Sabre nor Worldspan

submitted a copy of its request to the

docket for this proceeding, we have

placed a copy of each request in the

docket.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on October 17,

1997.

Nancy E. McFadden,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–28947 Filed 10–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 20, 22, 24, and 90

[WT Docket No. 97–207; FCC 97–341]

Calling Party Pays Service Option in

the Commercial Mobile Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Commission adopts a

Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in this

proceeding, seeking comment to

establish a record Calling Party Pays

(CPP), a service currently offered by

some Commercial Radio Service (CMRS)

providers. The goal of this proceeding is

to determine whether the wider

availability of CPP would enable CMRS

providers to more readily compete with

wireline services provided by Local

Exchange Carriers (LECs) and to

determine whether there are any actions

that the Commission could take to

promote the wider availability of CPP

for CMRS providers. The purpose of this

inquiry is to explore means of

encouraging and facilitating competition

in the local exchange telephone market.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

December 1, 1997, and reply comments

are due on or before December 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Office of the Secretary,

Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Pamela Megna or Dr. Joseph Levin,

Policy Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau (202) 418–

1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Inquiry in WB Docket No. 97–207, FCC

97–341, adopted September 25, 1997,

and released October 23, 1997. The

complete text of this NOI is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, Washington, DC 20036.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 58701

Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry

1. The Commission initiates this

Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to seek

information regarding Calling Party Pays

(CPP), a service option currently offered

by some Commercial Mobile Radio

Service (CMRS) providers. The purpose

of this inquiry is to explore means of

encouraging and facilitating competition

in the local exchange telephone market.

The NOI is intended to explore the

subject of CPP to develop a record for

determining whether the wider

availability of CPP would enable CMRS

providers to more readily compete with

wireline services provided by Local

Exchange Carriers (LECs) and to

determine whether there are actions that

the Commission could take to promote

the wider availability of CPP for CMRS

providers.

2. CPP is a service option that some

CMRS providers offer whereby the party

placing the call or page pays the airtime

charge, and any applicable charges for

calls transported within the LECs’ Local

Access and Transport Areas. In order for

a CMRS provider to offer this service

option, the LEC must be willing and

able to provide the CMRS carrier with

this billing service or sufficient

information for the CMRS carrier to bill

the calling party directly.

3. In this proceeding, the Commission

seeks information regarding, among

other issues, the current availability of

the CPP service option, how the calling

party is informed of charges that will be

incurred, the magnitude of these

charges, what technical and contractual

requirements are needed to implement

this service option, whether there are

technical, regulatory, or other barriers

impeding the availability of this service

option, and whether there are procompetitive reasons for the Commission

to initiate any actions to encourage the

availability of this service option.

Current Availability of CPP

4. Although some LECs currently offer

a CPP service option to CMRS carriers,

it is unclear how many mobile carriers

offer the CPP service option to their

subscribers. Moreover, outside the

United States, CPP seems to be the

prevalent billing system for mobile

telephony. Thus, the Commission seeks

information on which carriers offer the

CPP service option, in which geographic

markets consumers have the service

option, details of the arrangements

between LECs and CMRS carriers and

between CMRS carriers and subscribers,

any regulatory requirements imposed by

the various States and consumer

reaction to the service option. The

Commission seeks comments addressing

any additional issues that may be

associated with applying CPP to a

calling party originating a call to a

wireless phone from a wireless phone.

The Commission also seeks comment as

to the reasons CPP is not offered more

broadly.

5. The Commission seeks comment on

the level of consumer demand for CPP.

Commenters are requested to address

whether the market has failed to

accommodate consumer demand for this

or other service options and is likely to

in the future. Commenters should

provide detailed information on the

specific technical, regulatory, or

economic barriers that exist, and what

actions, if any, the Commission should

take to remove these barriers, in the

event that the Commission decides that

enhancing access to CPP is an

appropriate pro-competitive goal.

6. Parties should also comment as to

whether recent developments, including

increased competition in the CMRS

market, the related decrease in CMRS

rates, and the implementation of

reciprocal compensation for LEC–CMRS

interconnection arrangements, will

create sufficient market incentives for

CMRS carriers to refrain from charging

their own subscribers for incoming

calls. To the extent that CPP is offered

in a manner that requires the incumbent

LEC to pay carrier to carrier airtime

charges to complete a call, CPP and

reciprocal compensation may address a

similar issue (i.e. how the CMRS

provider recovers the cost of completing

a call that did not originate on the

CMRS network). Parties are asked to

comment on whether reciprocal

compensation may obviate or reduce the

need for CMRS providers to implement

CPP.

Demand Stimulating Effects

7. The Commission seeks comment on

current traffic patterns in the United

States, and in countries in which CPP is

the norm, and on whether CPP promotes

more balanced traffic flows and

increased demand for CMRS services.

8. It is uncertain, however, whether

the balance in incoming and outgoing

traffic reported in other countries is due

to CPP service or due to other factors.

Wireless service may be more desirable

in these countries because the wireline

network may be inferior in quality or

less accessible. Alternatively, the

increase in traffic terminating on a

wireless network in these countries

could be the result of an increase in

subscribers’ willingness to keep their

wireless phones turned on due to the

wider use of digital phones with their

longer battery lives. The Commission

seeks comment on these issues and

requests any empirical studies that

attempt to isolate the effect of CPP from

other variables. In particular, the

Commission seeks information on the

pricing of wireless and wireline service

in those countries in which CPP is the

norm, and requests parties to submit

any empirical studies or information

addressing these issues.

9. In addition some industry sources

believe CPP can increase the demand for

CMRS services by increasing the

minutes of usage or by increasing the

number of subscribers. The Commission

requests any empirical studies that have

documented the effects of CPP on

subscribership, traffic patterns

(including traffic between wireless and

wireline networks), and minutes of use

in the markets in which CPP has been

implemented. The Commission also

seeks information regarding the

possibility that CPP could in some way

alter the peak usage periods of the

wireline telephone network, thus

requiring network modifications.

10. The Commission also seeks

comment on the availability of the

service option whereby Wireless

subscribers do not pay for the first

minute of calls they receive. The

Commission seeks any empirical studies

and information on whether this service

option encourages consumers to

subscribe to mobile telephony services,

to subscribe to a digital system, to

disclose their mobile telephone number,

and to keep their mobile telephone in an

active operational mode. Further, the

Commission seeks comment regarding

whether use of the ‘‘first incoming

minute free’’ option more evenly

balances traffic to and from wireless

networks and whether it would have an

effect on the demand for CPP.

Pricing Issues

11. The Commission also seeks

information on the pricing structure of

CMRS and wireline services across the

United States and in other countries.

The pricing structure implicit in a CPP

service is significantly different than the

typical pricing structure for CMRS and

local wireline service in the United

States. The differences in pricing

between local telephone service and the

CPP service option could deter some

calls from wireline to mobile

subscribers and may hinder efforts to

minimize distinctions between

telephony service provided on wireline

and wireless networks. Widespread use

of CPP could decrease the extent to

which some consumers view CMRS and

wireline telephony as close substitutes

because the wireline consumer’s

incremental cost to place a local call to

a CMRS phone could significantly
58702 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Branding, in this context, is the ability to inform

the caller to a CMRS phone (by use of a recorded

intercept message) of additional charges applicable

to the call.

2 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(3)(B).

3Petition of Arizona Corporation Commission To

Extend State Authority Over Rate and Entry

Regulation of All Commercial Mobile Radio

Services and Implementation of Sections 3(n) and

332 of the Communications Act, PR Docket No. 94–

104 and GN Docket No. 93–252, Report and Order

and Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7824,

7837 (1996) (Arizona Decision).

4 61 FR 45476, August 29, 1996.

5 Iowa Utilities Board, 1997 WL 403401 (8th Cir.,

July 18, 1997), at n.21.

increase while there would be no

similar change in the consumer’s

incremental cost to place a local

wireline call. The Commission also

seeks information on the proportion of

wireline subscribers electing measured

local service, and estimates of the

potential demand for this option among

wireline subscribers, as well as price

information for measured local calls and

CPP calls, and whether they vary based

on time of day or some other factors. In

addition, the Commission seeks

comments concerning the extent to

which differences in prevailing rate

levels between wireline and wireless

service offerings may affect the relative

demand for these services, as well as

traffic balances between wireline and

wireless networks.

12. Finally, the Commission seeks

comment on whether there are fees

associated with reprogramming CMRS

phones and whether there are monthly

charges for CPP. The Commission also

requests information regarding the

amount of these fees or monthly

charges, and whether the rate the calling

party is charged varies across markets

and the time of day.

Consumer Protection Issues

13. Many State regulatory agencies

and consumer groups have raised

consumer protection issues related to

informing callers that they will be

charged a fee for placing a call to a

CMRS phone, and informing callers of

the magnitude of the charge. Therefore,

the Commission seeks information

regarding how the calling party can best

be informed of charges for calls to

CMRS phones, including the magnitude

of these charges. The Commission also

seeks comment on what technical and

contractual capabilities are needed to

inform the caller regarding his or her

responsibility to pay for the call and

regarding the amount of the charge for

the call.

14. Finally, the Commission seeks

comment on whether it would be in the

public interest for the Commission to

assist the telecommunications industry

and the States to develop a uniform

national method to inform the calling

party of the magnitude of the charge,

and of the calling party’s responsibility

to pay for the call. Commenters are also

requested to suggest any alternatives to

a uniform national approach that would

be in the public interest.

Technical Issues

15. It appears that the CPP service

option requires various infrastructure,

contractual, and billing collection

modifications that may limit its

implementation in the United States.

While the mobile carrier must have

access to billing collection information

for the calling party to be able to charge

incoming calls to the calling party, this

information may be unavailable in some

circumstances and may result in

uncollectible revenues for the CMRS

carrier. The Commission seeks comment

on these assumptions and issues, and on

any steps that could be taken to address

these concerns and impediments to the

operation of CPP.

16. In addition, not all LEC networks

currently appear to have the technical

capability to exchange the billing

information required for CPP. Moreover,

the use of call branding 1 as part of a

CPP service option may not always be

possible. The Commission seeks

comment on these technical issues, and

on what the Commission, the States, or

the industry could do to resolve them.

17. Finally, there are means available

to give the called CMRS subscriber

using CPP the option to pay for

incoming calls in some circumstances.

The Commission seeks comment on the

technical requirements for this option to

be deployed, where this option is

currently available, and how the calling

party and called party are informed of

this additional option.

Legal Issues

18. The Commission also seeks

comment regarding any legal issues that

may be posed by any actions the

Commission may take regarding

imposition or implementation of CPP.

19. As a threshold matter, the

Commission recognizes that we have

stated in the Arizona Decision, in the

context of ruling on whether a State had

made a sufficient showing within the

meaning of section 332(c)(3)(B) of the

Communications Act 2 that it should be

permitted to regulate the rates of CMRS

providers, that regulation of CPP was a

billing practice that may be regulated by

a State as a term or condition under

which service is provided. 3

20. In the wake of the Arizona

Decision, the Commission has made

clear, in the Local Competition First

Report and Order,4 that incumbent LECs

have an obligation to provide access to

unbundled network elements, and that

such network elements include

information sufficient to enable

recipients of the unbundled network

elements to provide billing services. In

addition, the Eighth Circuit Court of

Appeals, in its Iowa Utilities Board

decision, concluded that the

Commission has authority to order LECs

to interconnect with CMRS carriers and

has the authority to issue rules of

special concern to CMRS providers.5

21. In light of the Local Competition

First Report and Order and the Iowa

Utilities Board decision, the

Commission seeks comment regarding

the scope of our authority to require

LECs to provide billing information and

services which will enable CMRS

providers to offer CPP services.

Specifically, the Commission seeks

comment on whether we have authority

under section 332 to establish

requirements regarding CPP

arrangements between LECs and CMRS

carriers. The Commission requests any

commenters suggesting that the

Commission lacks authority under

section 332 to identify any other

provision of the Communications Act

that gives the Commission authority

over CPP arrangements. Commenters

should also address whether that

provision would give us the authority to

preempt State regulation in order to

establish nationwide rules for CPP.

Procedural Matters

22. The Commission adopts this

Notice of Inquiry under the authority

contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403

of the Communications Act of 1934, 47

U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 403. Pursuant to

applicable procedures set forth in

§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s

Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested

parties may file comments on or before

December 1, 1997, and may file reply

comments on or before December 16,

1997.

23. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

and five copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

you want each Commissioner to receive

a personal copy of your comments, you

should file an original and ten copies.

Comments and reply comments should

be sent to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239) of the Federal
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 58703

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

24. There are no ex parte or disclosure

requirements applicable to this

proceeding pursuant to § 1.1204(a)(4) of

the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR

1.1204(a)(4).

List of Subjects 47 CFR Parts 20, 22, 24,

and 90

Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–28762 Filed 10–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[I.D. 102197D]

RIN 0648–AG27

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery off the Southern

Atlantic States; Amendment 8

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of an

amendment to a fishery management

plan; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

South Atlantic Fishery Management

Council (Council) has submitted

Amendment 8 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic

Region for review, approval, and

implementation by NMFS. Written

comments are requested from the

public.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before December 29,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

to the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS,

9721 Executive Center Drive N., St.

Petersburg, FL 33702.

Requests for copies of Amendment 8,

which includes a final supplemental

environmental impact statement, an

initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a

regulatory impact review, and a social

impact assessment, should be sent to the

South Atlantic Fishery Management

Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite

306, Charleston, SC 29407–4699; phone:

803–571–4366; fax: 803–769–4520.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter J. Eldridge, 813–570–5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each

regional fishery management council to

submit any fishery management plan or

amendment to NMFS for review and

approval, disapproval, or partial

approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act

also requires that NMFS, upon receiving

an amendment, immediately publish a

document in the Federal Register

stating that the amendment is available

for public review and comment.

Amendment 8 would: Limit access to

the commercial snapper-grouper fishery;

allow the retention of snapper-grouper

in excess of the bag limits on a

permitted vessel that has a single bait

net or cast nets on board; subject to

specific conditions, exempt snappergrouper lawfully harvested in Bahamian

waters from the requirement that they

be maintained with head and fins intact

in the exclusive economic zone of the

South Atlantic; redefine ‘‘optimum

yield,’’ ‘‘overfished,’’ and ‘‘overfishing’’

for snapper-grouper; and establish a

‘‘threshold level’’ for snapper-grouper,

i.e., the level of spawning potential ratio

at which the Council will take

appropriate action including, but not

limited to, eliminating directed fishing

mortality and evaluating measures to

eliminate any bycatch mortality.

A proposed rule to implement

Amendment 8 has been received from

the Council. In accordance with the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is

evaluating the proposed rule to

determine whether it is consistent with

Amendment 8, the Magnuson-Stevens

Act, and other applicable law. If that

determination is affirmative, NMFS will

publish it in the Federal Register for

public review and comment.

Comments received by December 29,

1997, whether specifically directed to

the amendment or the proposed rule,

will be considered by NMFS in its

decision to approve, disapprove, or

partially approve Amendment 8.

Comments received after that date will

not be considered by NMFS in this

decision. All comments on Amendment

8 or on the proposed rule during their

respective comment periods will be

addressed in the final rule.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: October 23, 1997.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–28713 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F