Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5535

Management Agency has identified the

special flood hazard areas in some of

these communities by publishing a

Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The

date of the flood map, if one has been

published, is indicated in the fourth

column of the table. In the communities

listed where a flood map has been

published, Section 102 of the Flood

Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 4012(a), requires

the purchase of flood insurance as a

condition of Federal or federally related

financial assistance for acquisition or

construction of buildings in the special

flood hazard areas shown on the map.

The Executive Associate Director

finds that the delayed effective dates

would be contrary to the public interest.

The Executive Associate Director also

finds that notice and public procedure

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable

and unnecessary.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded

from the requirements of 44 CFR Part

10, Environmental Considerations. No

environmental impact assessment has

been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Executive Associate Director

certifies that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities in

accordance with the Regulatory

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

because the rule creates no additional

burden, but lists those communities

eligible for the sale of flood insurance.

Regulatory Classification

This final rule is not a significant

regulatory action under the criteria of

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of

September 30, 1993, Regulatory

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not involve any

collection of information for purposes of

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

This rule involves no policies that

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 12612, Federalism,

October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,

p. 252.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform

This rule meets the applicable

standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR

55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 309.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

Flood insurance, Floodplains.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is

amended as follows:

PART 64—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 64

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

§ 64.6 [Amended]

2. The tables published under the

authority of § 64.6 are amended as

follows:

State/location Community

No. Effective date of eligibility Current effectivemap date

NEW ELIGIBLES—Emergency Program

Missouri: Diehlstadt, village of, Scott County ................ 290925 Dec. 4, 1996.

Georgia: Dallas, city of, Paulding County ...................... 130372 Dec. 5, 1996.

North Carolina: Burgaw, town of, Pender County ......... 370483 ......do.

Michigan:

Crockery, township of, Ottawa County ................... 260981 Dec. 17, 1996.

Sylvan, township of, Osceola County ..................... 260982 ......do.

Greenwood, township of, Wexford County ............. 260947 Dec. 20, 1996.

NEW ELIGIBLES—Regular Program

Florida: Fort Myers Beach, town of, Lee County 1 ........ 120673 Dec. 17, 1996.

REINSTATEMENTS

Minnesota: Koochiching County, unincorporated areas 270233 July 1, 1974, Emerg; June 1, 1988, Reg; Sept. 26,

1996, Susp; Dec. 4, 1996, Rein.

Sept. 29, 1996.

Pennsylvania: West View, borough of, Allegheny

County.

420086 April 26, 1974, Emerg; June 30, 1976, Reg; Oct. 4,

1995, Susp; Dec. 4, 1996, Rein.

Oct. 4, 1995.

Pennsylvania:

Penn, township of, Chester County ........................ 421487 October 15, 1975, Emerg; Dec. 17, 1982, Reg; Nov.

20, 1996, Susp; Dec. 9, 1996, Rein.

Nov. 20, 1996.

Parkesburgh, borough of, Chester County ............. 422277 June 11, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1983, Reg; Nov. 20,

1996, Susp; Dec. 31, 1996, Rein.

July 16, 1996.

1The Town of Fort Myers Beach has been participating in the NFIP as part of the unincorporated areas of Lee County. The Town has adopted

Lee County’s (125120) Flood Insurance Study and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated 6/15/84 and any revisions thereto, for

flood insurance and floodplain management purposes.

Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Rein.—Reinstatement; Susp.—Suspension; With.—Withdrawn.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Issued: January 28, 1997.

Richard W. Krimm,

Executive Associate Director, Mitigation

Directorate.

[FR Doc. 97–2966 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–05–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 43 and 64

[CC Docket No. 90–337, FCC 96–459]

Regulation of International Accounting

Rates

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted a

Report and Order that will permit

flexibility in its accounting rate polices.

The Commission concluded that U.S.

carriers should be permitted to negotiate

alternative settlement payment

arrangements that deviate from the

International Settlements Policy (ISP)

with foreign correspondents in
5536 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

countries that satisfy the Commission’s

economic competitive opportunity

(ECO) test. In addition, the Commission

will consider alternative settlement

arrangements between a U.S. carrier and

a foreign correspondent in a country

that does not satisfy the ECO test where

the U.S. carrier can demonstrate that

deviation from the ISP will promote

market-oriented pricing and

competition, while precluding abuse of

market power by the foreign

correspondent. The Commission also

adopted safeguards to ensure that its

new flexibility policy does not have

anticompetitive effects in the

international market. The safeguards

that are alternative arrangements

between affiliated carriers and those

involved in non-equity joint ventures

must be filed with the Commission and

made public, and alternative

arrangements affecting more than

twenty-five percent of the inbound or

twenty-five percent of the outbound

traffic on a particular route must be filed

with the Commission and made public,

and not contain unreasonably

discriminatory terms and conditions.

The Commission’s action will encourage

the development of competitive market

conditions in other countries and lead

to more economically efficient

contractual arrangements for

terminating service that ultimately will

benefit U.S. consumers through lower

calling prices.

DATES: The amendments to §§ 43.51 and

64.1001 will become effective March 10,

1997. The amendments to §§ 43.61 and

64.1002 take effect either upon approval

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) or March 10, 1997,

whichever occurs later. When approval

is received, the agency will publish a

document announcing the effective

date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn O’Brien, Attorney-Advisor,

Policy and Facilities Branch,

Telecommunications Division,

International Bureau, (202) 418–1470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION This is a

summary of the Commission’s Fourth

Report and Order in CC Docket 90–337,

Phase II, adopted on November 26,

1996, and released on December 3, 1996

(FCC 96–459). The full text of the

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC’s Docket Reference Center,

Room 239, 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20554. Copies also may

be obtained from the Commission’s

contractor for public service records

duplication: ITS, Inc., 2100 M Street,

N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C.

20037, (202) 857–3800.

Summary of Fourth Report and Order

1. For years, U.S. carriers have been

required to comply with the

Commission’s International Settlements

Policy (ISP) in their bilateral accounting

rate negotiations with monopoly foreign

carriers. The ISP prevents foreign

carriers from discriminating among U.S.

carriers and requires: (1) The equal

division of accounting rates; (2)

nondiscriminatory treatment of U.S.

carriers; and (3) proportionate return of

inbound traffic. On January 31, 1996,

the Commission issued a Policy

Statement (61 FR 11163, March 19,

1996) that set forth a new approach for

regulating accounting rates that could,

when appropriate, rely on competitive

forces to determine termination costs

and efficient resource allocation. This

was one of the Commission’s initial

steps to lower international telephone

costs by reforming the international

accounting rate system. In light of the

Policy Statement the Commission

reopened the record in CC Docket No.

90–337, Phase II, In the Matter of

Regulation of International Accounting

Rates (Second Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking) (58 FR 3522,

January 11, 1993) for the submission of

supplemental comments and reply

comments. (Public Notices Seeking

Additional Comments, 61 FR 11172

(March 19, 1996) and 61 FR 11173

(March 19, 1996).

2. On December 3, 1996, the

Commission released the Fourth Report

and Order (FCC 96–459) adopting rules

to permit flexibility in international

accounting rate policies. With this

additional step to reform the accounting

rate system, the Commission created a

framework for competition in the

market for U.S. international

telecommunications services that is

more closely patterned on the

competitive market for domestic long

distance services. The Commission

concluded that the new rules should

increase options for U.S. carriers to

negotiate arrangements to terminate

their international traffic and result in

lower prices and greater choices for U.S.

consumers. In its decision, the

Commission fully describes the

differences between the new flexible

approach and the current accounting

rate policies.

3. The Commission rejected

arguments to delay adopting a more

flexible regulatory framework until

effectively competitive markets exist.

The Commission concluded that

creating a more flexible regulatory

framework at this time will serve its

objectives to promote competitive

behavior, improve economic

performance, and rely on competitive

market forces to determine call

termination charges to the maximum

extent permitted by market conditions.

The new framework for flexibility

permits carriers to deviate from the ISP

only with carriers in markets where the

legal, regulatory, and economic

conditions support competition and in

certain other limited circumstances. The

Commission adopted competitive

safeguards to ensure that where it

permits flexibility, it does not lead to

anticompetitive effects in the U.S.

market for international services.

4. The Commission adopted a

framework for alternative payment

arrangements that affords U.S. carriers

maximum flexibility to take advantage

of competitive pressures in foreign

markets to negotiate alternative

arrangements that will enhance

competition. At the same time, this

framework continues to safeguard

against anticompetitive behavior of

foreign carriers that favors one

correspondent U.S. carrier at the

expense of its U.S. competitors.

5. The Commission concluded U.S.

carriers will be allowed to negotiate

alternative settlement arrangements that

deviate from the ISP with foreign

correspondents in countries that satisfy

the ECO test set forth in Section

63.18(h)(6) of the Commission’s

regulations. The Commission stated

that, where the ECO test has been

satisfied, the ability of foreign carriers to

exercise market power is constrained by

the existence, or potential for,

competitive entry. Where the FCC

permits flexibility in its ISP, new

entrants in foreign markets will have

both the incentive and the opportunity

to compete with the incumbent foreign

carrier to terminate U.S.-originated

traffic. The Commission will consider

alternative settlement arrangements

between a U.S. carrier and a foreign

correspondent in a country that does not

satisfy the ECO test where the U.S.

carrier can demonstrate that deviation

from the ISP will promote marketoriented pricing and competition, while

precluding abuse of market power by

the foreign correspondent.

6. The Commission declined to limit

its ISP flexibility policy to certain

categories of carriers, such as nondominant foreign and U.S. carriers or

‘‘small’’ carriers. Instead, it concluded

that, subject to certain safeguards, any

U.S. carrier should be allowed to

negotiate alternative payment

arrangements with any carrier in a

foreign country that satisfies the ECO

test. This conclusion is consistent with

the policy of allowing market forces,

where possible, to determine the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5537

allocation of resources. Moreover,

allowing flexibility in the ISP is the best

support for development of more

competitive market structures and

therefore should not be unduly

restricted. In addition, the Commission

rejected MFSI’s proposal to preclude

U.S. carriers with market shares of

greater than five percent of U.S.-

outbound traffic from entering into

alternative settlement arrangements

because the proposal could impede the

effectiveness in reducing U.S. carrier

costs to terminate traffic.

7. Although it declined to preclude

dominant or large carriers from

negotiating alternative arrangements,

the Commission adopted competitive

safeguards to protect against potential

anticompetitive actions by foreign and

U.S. carriers with a significant share of

their markets, and to provide a ‘‘safety

net’’ for possible unanticipated

consequences of its ISP flexibility

policy. In particular, it will require that

a copy of all alternative settlement

arrangements affecting more than either

twenty-five percent of the outbound

traffic on a particular route or twentyfive percent of the inbound traffic on a

particular route be filed with the

Commission and made public. Also, the

Commission will require that any

alternative arrangement that affects

more than twenty-five percent of the

outbound traffic or twenty-five percent

of the inbound traffic on a particular

route not contain unreasonably

discriminatory terms and conditions.

This safeguard will require carriers that

negotiate innovative price and return

traffic terms in agreements that affect

more than twenty-five percent of either

the inbound or outbound traffic on a

given route to demonstrate that the

terms are not unreasonably

discriminatory, or to offer such terms on

a nondiscriminatory basis to competing

carriers. This safeguard will apply

whether the arrangement is between

separate carriers on the U.S. and foreign

ends, between two affiliates, or when a

carrier is self-corresponding. The

Commission will not permit carriers to

circumvent this twenty-five percent

threshold by negotiating two or more

agreements with one individual

correspondent carrier or its affiliate,

each of which affects less than twentyfive percent of the inbound or outbound

traffic on a particular route. Carriers will

be required to file a summary of the

terms and conditions of all

arrangements that do not trigger the

Commission’s safeguards and a full

copy of all alternative arrangements that

do trigger these safeguards. The

Commission reserved the right to

request a full copy of arrangements that

do not trigger its safeguards in order to

detect any potential circumvention of

the safeguards by carriers.

8. As an additional measure to guard

against unintended market disruptions

as a result of the new policy, the

Commission will not permit U.S.-

inbound traffic that still is subject to the

ISP (i.e., traffic from a foreign carrier

with whom a U.S. carrier does not have

an alternative payment arrangement) to

be routed through a foreign carrier that

has an alternative payment arrangement

with a U.S. carrier. The Commission

reserved the right to impose additional

safeguards on a case-by-case basis as a

condition of granting approval to enter

an alternative payment arrangement if it

finds that such safeguards are necessary

to prevent market distortions in the U.S.

IMTS market or to prevent significant

adverse results on net settlements

payments with a foreign country. If

alternative settlement arrangements

indicate a need, the Commission will

consider additional safeguards in the

future.

9. Because the new policy has an

impact on the ‘‘no special concessions’’

policy which was established in the

Foreign Carrier Entry Order, the

Commission created an exception to

that rule. This exception applies only to

alternative payment arrangements that

between U.S. carriers and foreign

carriers in countries that satisfy the ECO

test, or foreign carriers in countries that

do not satisfy the ECO test where the

U.S. carrier can demonstrate that

deviation from the ISP will promote

market-oriented pricing and

competition. Where these criteria have

not been met, the Commission will

continue to enforce vigorously its no

special concessions policy. The

Commission amended Section 63.14 of

its rules to reflect this limited exception

to the no special concessions policy.

10. The Commission determined that

the issue of tailoring settlement policies

to address the special circumstances

presented by developing countries,

would be better considered in the

context of a separate proceeding. Thus,

the Commission transferred the record

on this issue to its future benchmarks

proceeding.

11. To ensure that U.S. carriers are not

faced with undue delay in

implementing alternative payment

arrangements, the Commission

established an expedited process

whereby U.S. carriers may obtain

approval to enter an alternative payment

arrangement by filing a detailed petition

for declaratory ruling that the

alternative payment arrangement is

permitted under the criteria for

deviating from the ISP. Each petition for

declaratory ruling will be placed on

public notice and interested parties will

be allowed to file a formal opposition to

the petition within twenty-one days of

the date of public notice. If no formal

opposition is filed and the

Commission’s International Bureau has

not notified the carrier that grant of the

petition may not serve the public

interest and that implementation of the

alternative arrangement must await

formal staff action on the petition, the

petition will be deemed granted and the

alternative settlement arrangement may

be implemented as of the twenty-eighth

day after the date of public notice

without any formal staff action being

taken. If a formal opposition is filed, the

requesting carrier may file a response

pursuant to § 1.45 of the Commission’s

rules, and implementation of the

alternative payment arrangement must

await formal action by the FCC’s

International Bureau.

12. A U.S. carrier may seek approval

to enter an alternative payment

arrangement with a foreign carrier in a

country that has already been found to

satisfy the ECO test in the context of a

prior Section 214 facilities application

to serve that country. When a U.S.

carrier seeks approval to enter an

alternative payment arrangement with a

carrier in a foreign country where the

Commission has not yet made an ECO

determination, the carrier must submit

sufficient evidence to support a finding

that either the ECO test has been

satisfied, or that deviation from the ISP

will promote market-oriented pricing

and competition, while precluding

abuse of market power by the foreign

correspondent. In all cases, a petitioning

carrier must state whether the

alternative arrangement triggers our

safeguards, either because the

arrangement affects more than twentyfive percent of the inbound or twentyfive percent of the outbound traffic on

the affected route, or because the U.S.

carrier and its foreign correspondent are

affiliated or involved in a non-equity

joint venture affecting the provision of

basic services on the affected route.

13. The Commission required that a

full copy of all negotiated alternative

arrangements that trigger its safeguards

be filed with each petition. Where an

alternative arrangement does not trigger

the safeguards, a summary of the terms

and conditions must be filed with each

petition, and the Commission reserved

the right to request a copy of the

arrangement. Where an alternative

arrangement does not trigger the

safeguards, the Commission’s review

generally will focus on whether the

criteria for allowing flexibility have
5538 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

been met, rather than on the specific

terms of the alternative arrangement.

The Commission reserved the right to

review and, if need be, reject the terms

and conditions of all alternative

arrangements, regardless of whether

they trigger the safeguards, to ensure

that they meet the FCC’s policy

objectives and will not have a

significant adverse impact on U.S. net

settlement payments and resulting

traffic volumes.

14. The Commission will conduct

periodic reviews of alternative

settlement arrangements to ensure that

the arrangements meet the objectives of

creating a competitive market for IMTS

and achieving cost-based accounting

rates. The Commission will monitor the

operating results of alternative

arrangements along with foreign market

conditions to ensure that the

arrangements fulfill its objective of

achieving market-determined terms and

conditions of payment that approximate

competitive levels. As part of the

evaluation of alternative arrangements,

the Commission will compare the

results of each individual arrangement

with other alternative arrangements and

with its benchmark accounting rates.

15. The Commission will monitor the

operating results of approved alternative

arrangements to ensure that they do not

have significant adverse impacts on

traffic volumes and U.S. net settlement

payments. In their annual report of

international telecommunications traffic

filed pursuant to Section 43.61, U.S.

carriers will be required to include the

number of minutes of outbound and

inbound traffic settled pursuant to each

alternative arrangement. In the event an

alternative arrangement causes

significant increases in net settlement

payments with a foreign country, the

Commission will consider appropriate

action, including unilaterally ordering

an end to the arrangement and

reinstituting traditional settlement

practices. The Commission emphasized

its concern about increases in net

settlement outpayments that result from

distortions in market competition that

harm consumer interests.

16. The Commission amended

§§ 43.51 and 64.1001 of its rules to refer

to ‘‘waiver requests’’ submitted under

§ 64.1001 as ‘‘modification requests’’.

This change conforms its rules to the

historic practice of treating waiver

requests filed under § 64.1001 as nonrestricted proceedings, in the same

manner as Section 214(a) proceedings

are treated under the Commission’s ex

parte rules. Because this rule change

involves agency practice and procedure,

the notice and comment provisions of

the Administrative Procedure Act are

inapplicable.

17. The Commission codified its

proportionate return policy as a rule.

The issue of whether to codify the

policy was initially raised in the Foreign

Carrier Entry proceeding, but the record

was transferred to this proceeding. The

proportionate return requirement has

long been a cornerstone of the

Commission’s ISP, and the Commission

contends that by codifying this

requirement, it is sending a strong signal

to foreign carriers that the FCC does not

allow U.S. carriers to be whipsawed.

18. The Commission decided not to

apply the ISP to the global MSS

industry. Based on the record, the

Commission found no clear evidence

that the global MSS market necessarily

shares the anticompetitive

characteristics addressed by the ISP.

The Commission encouraged the MSS

industry to adopt an approach to

terminating international traffic that

leads to more cost-based results than the

current accounting rate regime. The

Commission reserved the authority to

apply the ISP or other safeguards to the

MSS industry in the future if it finds

that market conditions merit such

actions.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis

As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603

(‘‘RFA’’), an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) was

incorporated into the Second Report

and Order and Second Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘Second Further

NPRM’’) in CC Docket No. 90–337,

Phase II. The Commission sought

written public comments on the

proposals in the Second Further NPRM,

including the IRFA. The Commission’s

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(‘‘FRFA’’) in this Report and Order

conforms to the RFA, as amended by the

Contract With America Advancement

Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Public Law 104–

121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).

A. Need For and Objective of the Rules

This Report and Order: (1) Permits

U.S. carriers to deviate from the

requirements of the Commission’s

International Settlements Policy (ISP)

where appropriate market conditions

exist; and (2) codifies the Commission’s

preexisting proportionate return policy,

which is one of the requirements of the

ISP, as a rule of general applicability to

all facilities-based carriers.

With respect to our action permitting

U.S. carriers to deviate from the

requirements of the Commission’s ISP

where appropriate market conditions

exist, our objective is to create a more

flexible framework for regulating

international accounting rates that

permits U.S. carriers to take advantage

of competitive market conditions in

foreign countries to negotiate more

economically efficient settlement rates.

This action is an important step toward

a transition from the traditional

accounting rate system to competitive

markets for originating and terminating

international traffic. A more flexible

approach to the accounting rate system

will enable U.S. carriers to respond

more rapidly to changing conditions in

the global telecommunications market,

reduce their call termination costs and

the U.S. net settlement payments, and

provide for lower calling prices for U.S.

consumers.

With respect to our action codifying

the Commission’s preexisting

proportionate return policy, our

objective is to restrict the ability of

foreign carriers to manipulate the

allocation of return traffic and whipsaw

U.S. carriers. This policy has long been

a cornerstone of our ISP, and codifying

it will send a strong signal to foreign

carriers that we will not allow U.S.

carriers to be whipsawed. We note,

however, the flexible regulatory

framework we adopt in this Report and

Order permits carriers to deviate from

this requirement where appropriate

market conditions exist.

B. Summary of Issues Raised by the

Public Comments in Response to the

IRFA

No comments were submitted in

direct response to the IRFA. We also

reviewed the general comments for

potential impact on small business.

Some commenters raised the concern

that allowing flexibility for large and/or

dominant carriers would put smaller

carriers at a disadvantage. These

commenters contend that larger carriers

will be able to negotiate more favorable

terms and conditions than smaller

carriers due to their greater traffic

volumes. We believe that these concerns

are addressed by the safeguards we

adopt in this Report and Order.

C. Description and Estimate of Small

Entities Subject to Which Rules Will

Apply

The Commission has not developed a

definition of small entities applicable to

international facilities-based common

carriers. Therefore, the applicable

definition of small entity is the

definition under the Small Business

Administration (SBA) rules applicable

to Communications Services, Not

Elsewhere Classified. This definition

provides that a small entity is expressed
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5539

as one with $11.0 million or less in

annual receipts. Based on preliminary

1995 data, at present there are 29

international facilities-based common

carriers that qualify as small entities

pursuant to the SBA’s definition. The

number of small international facilitiesbased common carriers has been

growing significantly, and by the end of

1996 that number could increase to

approximately 50. The flexibility rules

adopted in this decision will apply to

these carriers only if they enter an

alternative accounting rate arrangement

with a foreign carrier, and the

proportionate return rules codified in

this Report and Order apply to all these

carriers that enter into an operating

agreement that provides for return

traffic with a foreign carrier.

The IRFA and a Public Notice seeking

supplemental comments were issued in

November 1992 and January 1996,

respectively. Therefore, the record in

this proceeding was closed prior to the

effective date of SBREFA. The

Commission was thus unable to request

information regarding the number of

international facilities-based common

carriers that qualify as small entities.

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping

and Other Compliance Requirements of

the Rules

International facilities-based common

carriers must file a petition for

declaratory ruling and obtain

Commission approval before

implementing an alternative settlement

rate arrangement with a foreign carrier

that deviates from the regulatory

requirements of the Commission’s ISP.

In addition, carriers that implement

such alternative arrangements must

include in their annual report of

international telecommunications traffic

filed pursuant to Section 43.61 of the

Commission’s rules the number of

minutes of outbound and inbound

traffic settled pursuant to each

alternative arrangement. Carriers

already are required to file this annual

traffic report; this Report and Order

requires only that carriers that enter

alternative arrangements include in

their annual traffic report a description

of the minutes settled pursuant to those

arrangements. This reporting

requirement and the requirement that

carriers obtain approval of alternative

arrangements are necessary to enable

the Commission to review and monitor

alternative arrangements for possible

adverse effects on the U.S. market for

international telecommunications

services. These rules apply only to those

small entities that take advantage of the

opportunity to negotiate alternative

settlement arrangements that deviate

from the regulatory requirements of the

Commission’s ISP. Compliance with

these rules may require the use of

accounting and legal skills.

A U.S. international facilities-based

common carrier that enters into an

operating agreement with a foreign

correspondent may not receive an

allocation of return traffic from the

foreign correspondent to the U.S. carrier

that is not proportionate to the amount

of traffic that the U.S. carrier sends

outbound to the foreign correspondent.

This requirement previously has

applied to all carriers, including small

entities, as part of the Commission’s

ISP. This Report and Order also adopts

a flexible regulatory framework that

permits carriers to deviate from this

requirement where appropriate market

conditions exist. Compliance with this

rule may require the use of accounting

and legal skills.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities

Consistent With Stated Objectives

We have not identified, and

commenters have not provided, any

significant alternatives that may

minimize the economic impact on small

entities consistent with the stated

objectives. We recognize that all

carriers, including small entities, may

have an increased paperwork burden;

however, this Report and Order will

reduce regulatory requirements on small

entities that enter into operating

agreements with foreign correspondents

that include a negotiated accounting

rate. Small entities entering alternative

settlement arrangements pursuant to

this Report and Order will not have to

comply with the requirements of the

Commission’s ISP, including the

proportionate return requirement that is

codified in this Report and Order.

Several parties raised concerns that

allowing flexibility in our ISP may harm

smaller carriers because larger carriers

may be able to obtain more favorable

alternative arrangements due to their

large market share. This Report and

Order recognizes that there exists the

potential for anticompetitive behavior

by large carriers. However, rather than

preclude large carriers from entering

into alternative arrangements or

postpone our flexibility policy, this

Report and Order adopts competitive

safeguards to help prevent potential

anticompetitive behavior. These

safeguards address the concerns raised

by commenters, but at the same time

enable the Commission to meet its

objectives of allowing U.S. carriers,

including small entities, to respond

more rapidly to changing conditions in

the global telecommunications market,

reduce their call termination costs and

the U.S. net settlement payments, and

provide for lower calling prices for U.S.

consumers.

The Commission shall send a copy of

this Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis, along with this Report and

Order, in a report to Congress pursuant

to the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA

will also be published in the Federal

Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Report and Order revises an

existing information collection and

imposes a new information collection.

We recognize that the implementation

of these requirements will be subject to

review and approval of the Office of

Management and Budget. Both the new

and revised information collections

contained in these rules will be

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for review under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To

obtain copies of the information

collections contact Dorothy Conway at

(202) 418–0217 or via internet at

dconway@fcc.gov. Persons wishing to

comment on this collection of

information should direct their

comments to Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications Commission, Records

Management Division, Room 234,

Paperwork Reduction Project (3060–

0572), Washington, D. C. 20554. For

Further information Contact Dorothy

Conway, (202) 418–0217.

Comments are invited on (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

Commission’s estimate of burden of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be collected

and (d) ways to minimize the burden of

the collection of information on

respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

OMB Number: 3060–0106.

Title: Common Carrier International

Telecommunications Services.

Type of Review: Revision of existing

collection.

Respondents: U.S. common carriers

providing international

telecommunications services.

Number of Respondents: 248 (based

on number of international carriers

filing traffic reports in 1995).

Estimated Annual Burden: 8 hours

including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data
5540 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

sources, segregating the data needed,

and completing and reviewing the

collection of information.

Total Annual Burden: 1,984 hours.

Estimated costs per respondent: None.

Needs and Uses: The collection of

information for which approval is here

sought is contained in amendments to

Part 43 in the Order adopting such

amendments. The information

collections are authorized and necessary

for the Commission to carry out its

statutory mandate, pursuant to Sections

1, 4, 201–205, 211, 214, 218–220, and

303 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151,

154, 201–205, 211, 214, 218–220, and

303, and Part 43 of the Commission’s

Rules.

The information collections contained

in amendments to Part 43 are necessary

to assist us in reviewing the impact, if

any, that alternative settlement

agreements have on our international

accounting rate policies. The

information collections will also

enhance the ability of the Commission

and interested parties to monitor this

policy for anticompetitive effects in the

U.S. market for international service,

thus increasing competitive options for

U.S. carriers and resulting in lower

prices and greater choices for U.S.

consumers. The information collection

will enable the Commission to promote

competitive behavior, improve

economic performance, and preserve the

integrity of our accounting rate policies.

The information collections also will

enable the Commission and interested

parties to determine whether or not the

competitive safeguards are sufficient to

protect U.S. carriers and consumers

against harmful discriminatory practices

by foreign carriers.

The information will be used by the

Commission staff in carrying out its

duties under the Communications Act.

Common carriers engaged in providing

international telecommunications

service are required to file annual

reports of international

telecommunications traffic. The new

rules require that the report shall

include the number of minutes of

outbound and inbound traffic settled

pursuant to each alternative

arrangement entered into pursuant to

the new Section 64.1002.

OMB Number: 3060–0000.

Title: Common Carrier International

Telecommunications Services.

Type of Review: New Collection.

Respondents: U.S. common carriers

providing international

telecommunications services.

Frequency of Response: As needed

basis.

Number of Respondents: 30. It is

difficult to estimate the number of

respondents filing this information

because the information will be filed

only by those carriers seeking

permission to enter agreements that do

not comply with the §§ 43.41(e)(1),

63.14, and 64.1001 of our rules. Such

agreements will only be permitted

under certain circumstances. Given the

limitations on negotiating such

agreements, we estimate that no more

than 30 such agreements will be

negotiated, and very likely, significantly

fewer than that number.

Estimated Annual Burden: 16 hours

including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

It is difficult to estimate the estimated

annual burden for filing the information

because it will depend on how many

agreements the carriers wish to enter.

Total Annual Burden: 480 hours.

Cost per respondent: $1,600. This

amount is an estimate depending on

whether the respondents use in-house

legal staff or professional law firms to

prepare the filing.

Needs and Uses: The collection of

information for which approval is here

sought is contained in amendments to

Part 64 in the Order adopting such

amendments. This information

collection is authorized and necessary

for the Commission to carry out its

statutory mandate, pursuant to Sections

1, 4, 201–205, 211, 214, 218–220, and

303 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151,

154, 201–205, 211, 214, 218–220, and

303, and Part 43 of the Commission’s

Rules.

The information collection contained

in amendments to Part 64 is necessary

to allow U.S. carriers to enter into

alternative settlement agreements that

do not comply with §§ 43.41(e)(1),

63.14, and 64.1001 of our rules. The

information collected pursuant to this

section will enable the Commission to

consider alternative agreements that are

outside the scope of its current rules.

The information collected will be used

to monitor the alternative agreements to

ensure that competitive opportunities

are available. The information collected

will also enable interested parties to

monitor the alternative agreements and

determine potentially anticompetitive

arrangements. In addition, the

information collected will be the only

information available to the

Commission and interested parties on

alternative accounting settlement

arrangements. This information

collection will provide the agency with

sufficient data to review the impact, if

any, that the alternative settlement

agreement will have on our

international accounting rate policies.

The information collection will also

enhance the ability of the Commission

and interested parties to monitor for

anticompetitive effects in the U.S.

market for international service, thus

increasing competitive options for U.S.

carriers and resulting in lower prices

and greater choices for U.S. consumers.

The information collection will enable

the Commission to promote competitive

behavior, improve economic

performance, and preserve the integrity

of our accounting rate policies. The

information collections also will enable

the Commission and interested parties

to determine whether or not the

competitive safeguards are sufficient to

protect U.S. carriers and consumers

against harmful discriminatory practices

by foreign carriers.

The information will be used by the

Commission staff in carrying out its

duties under the Communications Act.

Ordering Clauses

19. Accordingly, §§ 43.51 and 64.1001

will become effective March 10, 1997.

Sections 43.61 and 64.1002 take effect

either upon approval by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) or

March 10, 1997 whichever occurs later.

When approval is received, the agency

will publish a document announcing

the effective date.

20. This action is taken pursuant to

Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 201–205 of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r)

and sections 201–205, Constitution of

the International Telecommunications

Union, Special Arrangements Article,

and International Telecommunications

Regulations, Article 9. Special

Arrangements.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 43 and

64

Communications common carriers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Rule Changes

Parts 43 and 64 of Title 47 of the Code

of Federal Regulations are amended as

follows:

PART 43—REPORTS OF

COMMUNICATION COMMON

CARRIERS AND CERTAIN AFFILIATES

1. The authority citation for Part 43

continues to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5541

Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, unless otherwise

noted. Interpret or apply secs. 211, 219, 220,

48 Stat. 1073, 1077, as amended; 47 U.S.C.

211, 219, 220.

2. Section 43.51 is amended by

revising paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 43.51 Contracts and concessions.

* * * * *

(d) International settlements policy.

(1) If a carrier files an operating

agreement (whether in the form of a

contract, concession, license, etc.)

referred to in paragraph (a) of this

section to begin providing switched

voice, telex, telegraph, or packetswitched service between the United

States and a foreign point and the terms

and conditions of such agreement

relating to the exchange of services,

interchange or routing of traffic and

matters concerning rates, accounting

rates, division of tolls, the allocation of

return traffic, or the basis of settlement

of traffic balances, are not identical to

the equivalent terms and conditions in

the operating agreement of another

carrier providing the same or similar

service between the United States and

the same foreign point, the carrier must

also file with the International Bureau a

notification letter or modification

request, as appropriate, under § 64.1001

of this chapter. No carrier providing

switched voice, telex, telegraph, or

packet-switched service between the

United States and a foreign point shall

bargain for or agree to accept more than

its proportionate share of return traffic.

(2) If a carrier files an amendment to

the operating agreement referred to in

paragraph (a) of this section under

which it already provides switched

voice, telex, telegraph, or packetswitched service between the United

States and a foreign point, and other

carriers provide the same or similar

service to the same foreign point, and

the amendment relates to the exchange

of services, interchange or routing of

traffic and matters concerning rates,

accounting rates, division of tolls, the

allocation of return traffic, or the basis

of settlement of traffic balances, the

carrier must also file with the

International Bureau a notification letter

or modification request, as appropriate,

under § 64.1001 of this chapter.

3. Section 43.61 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 43.61 Reports of international

telecommunications traffic.

* * * * *

(b) The information contained in the

reports shall include actual traffic and

revenue data for each and every service

provided by a common carrier, divided

among service billed in the United

States, service billed outside the United

States, and service transiting the United

States. In addition, it shall include the

number of minutes of outbound and

inbound traffic settled pursuant to each

alternative arrangement entered into

pursuant to § 64.1002 of this chapter.

* * * * *

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

1. The authority citation for Part 64

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 201–205, 211, 218–220,

303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1070, 1072–73, 1077–78,

as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 201–205, 211,

218–220, 303.

2. Section 64.1001 is amended by

revising the heading for Subpart J, the

section heading, paragraph (d), (e)(7), (f)

introductory text, (g) introductory text,

and paragraphs (i), (j), (k), and (l) to read

as follows:

Subpart J—International Settlements

Policy and Modification Requests

§ 64.1001 International settlements policy

and modification requests.

* * * * *

(d) If the operating agreement or

amendment referred to in §§ 43.51(d)(1)

and (d)(2) of this chapter is not subject

to notification under paragraphs (b) and

(c) of this section, the carrier must file

a modification request under paragraph

(f) of this section.

(e) * * *

(7) A statement that there has been no

other modification in the operating

agreement with the foreign

correspondent regarding the exchange of

services, interchange or routing of traffic

and matters concerning rates,

accounting rates, division of tolls,

allocation of return traffic, or the basis

of settlement of traffic balances.

(f) A modification request must

contain the following information:

* * * * *

(g) Notification letters and

modification requests must contain

notarized statements that the filing

carrier:

* * * * *

(i) If a carrier files a notification letter

for an operating agreement or

amendment that should have been filed

as a modification request, the Bureau

will return the notification letter to the

filing carrier and the Bureau will notify

the carrier that, before it can implement

the proposed modification, it must file

a modification request under paragraph

(f) of this section.

(j) An operating agreement or

amendment filed under a modification

request cannot become effective until

the modification request has been

granted under paragraph (l) of this

section.

(k) On the same day the notification

letter or modification request is filed,

carriers must serve a copy of the

notification letter or modification

request on all carriers providing the

same or similar service to the foreign

administration identified in the filing.

(l) All modification requests will be

subject to a twenty-one (21) day

pleading period for objections or

comments, commencing the date after

the request is filed. If the modification

request is not complete when filed, the

carrier will be notified that additional

information is to be submitted, and a

new 21 day pleading period will begin

when the additional information is

filed. The modification request will be

deemed granted as of the twenty-second

(22nd) day without any formal staff

action being taken: provided

(1) No objections have been filed, and

(2) The International Bureau has not

notified the carrier that grant of the

modification request may not serve the

public interest and that implementation

of the proposed modification must await

formal staff action on the modification

request. If objections or comments are

filed, the carrier requesting the

modification request may file a response

pursuant to § 1.45 of this chapter.

Modification requests that are formally

opposed must await formal action by

the International Bureau before the

proposed modification can be

implemented.

3. New § 64.1002 is added to Subpart

J to read as follows:

§ 64.1002 Alternative settlement

arrangements.

(a) A communications common

carrier engaged in providing switched

voice, telex, telegraph, or packet

switched service between the United

States and a foreign point may seek

approval to enter into an operating

agreement with a foreign

telecommunications administration

containing an alternative settlement

arrangement that does not comply with

the requirements of § 43.51(e)(1) and

§ 63.14 of this chapter and § 64.1001 by

filing a petition for declaratory ruling in

compliance with the requirements of

this section.

(b) A petition for declaratory ruling

must contain the following:

(1) Information to demonstrate that

either:

(i) The Commission has made a

previous determination that the
5542 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

effective competitive opportunities test

in § 63.18(h)(6)(i) of this chapter has

been satisfied on the route covered by

the alternative settlement arrangement;

or

(ii) The effective competitive

opportunities test in § 63.18(h)(6)(i) of

this chapter is satisfied on the route

covered by the alternative settlement

arrangement; or

(iii) The alternative settlement

arrangement is otherwise in the public

interest.

(2) A certification as to whether the

alternative settlement arrangement

affects more than 25 percent of the

outbound traffic or 25 percent of the

inbound traffic on the route to which

the alternative settlement arrangement

applies.

(3) A certification as to whether the

parties to the alternative settlement

arrangement are affiliated, as defined in

§ 63.18(h)(1)(i) of this chapter, or

involved in a non-equity joint venture

affecting the provision of basic services

on the route to which the alternative

settlement arrangement applies.

(4) A copy of the alternative

settlement arrangement if it affects more

than 25 percent of the outbound traffic

or 25 percent of the inbound traffic on

the route to which the alternative

settlement arrangement applies, or if it

is between parties that are affiliated, as

defined in § 63.18(h)(1)(i) of this

chapter, or that are involved in a nonequity joint venture affecting the

provision of basic services on the route

to which the alternative settlement

arrangement applies.

(5) A summary of the terms and

conditions of the alternative settlement

arrangement if it does not come within

the scope of paragraph (b)(4) of this

section. However, upon request by the

International Bureau, a full copy of such

alternative settlement arrangement must

be forwarded promptly to the

International Bureau.

(c) An alternative settlement

arrangement filed for approval under

this section cannot become effective

until the petition for declaratory ruling

required by paragraph (a) of this section

has been granted under paragraph (e) of

this section.

(d) On the same day the petition for

declaratory ruling has been filed, the

filing carrier must serve a copy of the

petition on all carriers providing the

same or similar service with the foreign

administration identified in the petition.

(e) All petitions for declaratory ruling

shall be subject to a 21 day pleading

period for objections or comments,

commencing the day after the date of

public notice listing the petition as

accepted for filing. The petition will be

deemed granted as of the 28th day

without any formal staff action being

taken: provided

(1) The petition is not formally

opposed within the meaning of

§ 1.1202(e) of this chapter; and

(2) The International Bureau has not

notified the filing carrier that grant of

the petition may not serve the public

interest and that implementation of the

proposed alternative settlement

arrangement must await formal staff

action on the petition. If objections or

comments are filed, the petitioning

carrier may file a response pursuant to

§ 1.45 of this chapter. Petitions that are

formally opposed must await formal

action by the International Bureau

before the proposed alternative

settlement arrangement may be

implemented.

[FR Doc. 97–2922 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AB88

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Determination of

Endangered Status for ‘‘Pseudobahia

bahiifolia’’ (Hartweg’s golden

sunburst) and Threatened Status for

‘‘Pseudobahia peirsonii’’ (San Joaquin

adobe sunburst), Two Grassland

Plants From the Central Valley of

California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) determines endangered status

for Pseudobahia bahiifolia (Hartweg’s

golden sunburst) and threatened status

for Pseudobahia peirsonii (San Joaquin

adobe sunburst) pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). The two plants occur

primarily in nonnative grasslands in the

eastern and southeastern portions of the

San Joaquin Valley, but also at a few

sites at the ecotone between grasslands

dominated by nonnative species and

blue oak woodland communities. Both

plants are threatened primarily by

conversion of habitat to residential

development. To a lesser extent, the

species are variously threatened by

agriculture (ag-land development),

competition from nonnative plants,

incompatible grazing practices,

transmission line maintenance,

recreational activities, mining, road

construction and maintenance, a flood

control project, and other human

impacts. Potential threats include

herbicide application to control

herbaceous and weedy taxa. This rule

implements the Federal protection and

recovery provisions afforded by the Act

for these species.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento Field Office, 3310

El Camino Avenue, Suite 130,

Sacramento, California 95821–6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Warne (see ADDRESSES

section) telephone 916/979–2120;

facsimile 916/979–2128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pseudobahia bahiifolia (Hartweg’s

golden sunburst) and Pseudobahia

peirsonii (San Joaquin adobe sunburst)

are endemic to the nonnative grassland

and grassland-blue oak woodland

community ecotone of the southern

Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin

Valley of California. These two valleys

comprise the Central Valley. The

prehistoric composition of the native

grasslands and adjoining plant

communities likely will remain a

mystery (Brown 1982), although

numerous authors have speculated as to

the composition of the ‘‘pristine’’ flora

of the Central Valley (Clements 1934,

Munz and Keck 1950, Biswell 1956,

Twisselmann 1956, White 1967,

McNaughton 1968, Bakker 1971,

Ornduff 1974, Heady 1977, Bartolome

and Gremmill 1981, and Wester 1981).

Nonnative annual grasses and forbs

invaded the low elevation plant

communities of California during the

days of the Franciscan missionaries in

the 1700’s. These nonnative grasses now

account for up to 80 percent or more of

the floral composition of the grasslands

of California (Heady 1956). The

nonnative grasses have outcompeted the

native flora throughout much of

California because these exotics

germinate in late fall prior to the

germination of the native forbs,

including the two sunflower species

discussed herein, Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii.

Each species, however, occurs in a

distinctive microhabitat within the

larger matrix of nonnative annual

grassland. Pseudobahia bahiifolia

prefers the top of ‘‘Mima’’ mound

topography where the grass cover is