60034 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1 Implementation of the Pay Telephone

Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket

No. 96–128, Report and Order, 61 FR 52307

(October 7, 1996), 11 FCC Rcd 20,541 (1996),

(‘‘Report and Order’’); Order on Reconsideration, 61

FR 65341 (December 12, 1996), 11 FCC Rcd 21,233

(1996)(’’Order on Reconsideration’’) (together the

‘‘Payphone Orders’’).

2See Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,591,

paras. 98–99; Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC

Rcd at 21265–66, para. 64, and 21,278–80, paras.

93–99.

3See Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at

21265–66, para. 64, and 21,278–80, paras. 93–99.

4See id.

5Requests were received from the United States

Telephone Association (USTA), the LEC ANI

Coalition and TDS Communications Corporation.

Those petitions have been placed on public notice

for comments. See DA 97–2214, Pleading Cycle

Established for Petitions to Waive Payphone Coding

Digits Requirements, October 20, 1997.

6This waiver does not change the obligations of

LECs pursuant to our requirements in Policies and

Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay

Telephone Compensation, Third Report and Order,

CC Docket No. 91–35, 61 FR 26466 (May 28, 1996),

11 FCC Rcd 17,021 (1996).

evaluate Petitioners’ proposals. In

addition, the need for swift

consideration of these proposals, in

order to enhance the competitiveness of

the wireless cable industry and expedite

educational institutions’ access to the

Internet via ITFS frequencies, may be

defeated by implementing a potentially

lengthy negotiated rulemaking

procedure. Thus, we reject CTN’s

proposal for a negotiated rulemaking at

this time. Should circumstances

warrant, however, we reserve the option

to revisit our decision on this issue at

a later date. Conversely, SWM requests

the issuance of an NPRM in this

proceeding, and noting that many of the

parties which filed comments in the

initial round of this proceeding are ITFS

entities, requests an early Fall comment

date in light of the academic schedules

which predominate amongst these

entities. The comment period that we

establish here, therefore, should

enhance the ability of ITFS entities to

file carefully considered comments and

reply comments. We solicit comment in

the NPRM on other substantive and

procedural alternatives to adoption of

the proposed two-way digital

transmission scheme.

Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate

or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

None.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

Environmental impact statements

47 CFR Part 21

Communications common carriers,

Communications equipment, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Television.

47 CFR Part 74

Communications equipment,

Education, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–29346 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket 96–128; DA 97–2162]

Pay Telephone Reclassification and

Compensation Provisions of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for waiver.

SUMMARY: On October 7, 1997, the

Common Carrier Bureau granted, on its

own motion, a limited waiver of five

months, until March 9, 1998, to those

local exchange carriers and payphone

service providers that cannot provide

payphone-specific digits as required by

orders in this proceeding. This limited

waiver applied to the requirement that

local exchange carriers provide

payphone-specific coding digits to

payphone service providers, and that

payphone service providers provide

coding digits from their payphones

before they can receive per-call

compensation from interexchange

carriers for subscriber 800 and access

code calls, and 0+ and inmate calls. The

limited waiver recognized that three

parties had filed petitions for waiver of

the payphone-specific coding digit

requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

Crellin or Greg Lipscomb, Formal

Complaints and Information Branch,

Enforcement Division, Common Carrier

Bureau. (202) 418–0960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A toll-free

call transmitted by a local exchange

carrier (LEC) to an interexchange carrier

(IXC) carries with it billing information

codes, called automatic number

identification (ANI), supplied by the

LEC that assist the IXC in properly

billing the call. Currently, however, not

all payphone calls carry the payphonespecific coding digits necessary to

identify the calls as payphone calls,

making per-call tracking and blocking

more difficult.

In the Payphone Orders,1 we imposed

a requirement that LECs provide

payphone-specific coding digits to

payphone service providers (PSPs), and

that PSPs provide those digits from their

payphones before the PSPs can receive

per-call compensation from IXCs for

subscriber 800 and access code calls.2 In

the Order on Reconsideration, we

clarified that, to be eligible for per-call

compensation beginning October 7,

1997, payphones are required to

transmit specific payphone coding

digits as a part of their ANI, which will

assist in identifying payphones to

compensation payers.3 Each payphone

must transmit coding digits that

specifically identify it as a payphone,

and not merely as a restricted line.4 We

also clarified that by October 7, 1997,

LECs must make available to PSPs, on

a tariffed basis, such coding digits as a

part of the ANI for each payphone.

We have received three requests for a

waiver of the payphone-specific coding

digit requirements.5 Meanwhile, we

have granted, on our own motion,

pursuant to § 1.3 of our rules, a limited

waiver, until March 9, 1998, of the

payphone-specific coding requirement

for those LECs and PSPs not yet able to

provide transmission of such digits.

Those LECs and PSPs that are able to

transmit the required coding digits by

October 7, 1997, remain obligated to do

so. Similarly, the remaining LECs and

PSPs are obligated to transmit the

required coding digits as soon as they

are technically capable, but in any event

no later than March 9, 1998.

During the period between October 7,

1997, and March 9, 1998, payphones

appearing on the LEC-provided lists of

payphones will be eligible for per-call

compensation even if they do not

transmit payphone-specific codes. This

waiver of the requirements applicable to

LECs and PSPs will provide LECs, IXCs,

and PSPs with additional time that the

record indicates is necessary to

implement the procedures needed to

transmit payphone-specific coding

digits, without further delaying the

payment of per-call compensation

required by section 276 of the Act.6
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 60035

7USTA Petition at 9, 11.

8WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C.

Cir. 1969).

9 47 U.S.C. 276(b)(A).

We also include LECs that have nonequal-access switches in the general

coverage of this waiver. We do not

address in this order the special

problems presented by non-equal-access

switches that were raised in the USTA

Petition.7 We will be addressing in a

separate order the issues raised by

parties regarding the provision of

payphone-specific coding digits by nonequal-access switches. This waiver is effective immediately

in order to ensure that all PSPs receive

per-call compensation effective October

7, 1997, as required by the Payphones

Orders.

This waiver is appropriate because

special circumstances warrant a

deviation from the general rule, and

such a deviation will serve the public

interest.8 The special circumstances are

that transmission of payphone-specific

coding digits is not yet ready for

implementation for certain payphones.

The industry is, however, working on an

expeditious resolution of this situation.

The public interest is served by this

waiver because it allows the

Commission to move forward in

implementing the statutory

requirement 9 that PSPs receive fair

compensation for calls placed from their

payphones. Refusal to waive this

requirement would lead to the

inequitable result that many payphone

providers, particularly independent

providers who do not control the

network modifications necessary to

permit payphone-specific coding digits

to be transmitted, would be denied any

compensation while implementation

issues are being resolved by the

industry. This limited waiver, moreover,

will not significantly harm any parties.

The unavailability of these coding

digits, for instance, will not preclude

IXCs from identifying payphone calls

for the purpose of determining the

number of calls for which compensation

is owned. Nor will the waiver interefere

with the possibly sixty percent of

payphones that currently are able to

transmit payphone-specific coding

digits. Accordingly, pursuant to authority

contained in sections 1, 4, 201–205, 218,

226, and 276 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,

154, 201–205, 218, 226, and 276, and

§§ 0.91, 0.291 and 1.3 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.291

and 1.3, it is ordered on the

Commission’s own motion that the time

before payphone-specific coding digits

are required for per-call compensation is

extended until March 9, 1998, to the

extent described herein.

It is further ordered that this order is

effective upon release thereof, and that

the waiver included in this order is

effective October 7, 1997.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Communications common carriers,

Operator service access, Payphone

compensation, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

A. Richard Metzger, Jr.,

Acting Chief, Common Carrier Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–29305 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 385

[FHWA Docket Nos. MC–94–22 and MC–96–

18; FHWA–97–2252]

RIN 2125–AC 71

Safety Fitness Procedure; Safety

Ratings

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document incorporates a

Safety Fitness Rating Methodology

(SFRM) as an appendix to the Motor

Carrier Safety Fitness Procedures

regulations. The SFRM will be used to

measure the safety fitness of motor

carriers against the safety fitness

standard contained in 49 CFR Part 385.

By this action the FHWA will supersede

the interim final rule promulgated on

May 28, 1997, effective May 28, 1997

until November 28, 1997 (62 FR 28807).

That rule incorporated an SFRM to

calculate the safety fitness of motor

carriers transporting hazardous

materials in quantities for which vehicle

placarding is required, or transporting

15 or more passengers including the

driver. The rule also includes a

procedure which provides a notice

period of 45 days during which a

proposed rating can be challenged

before it becomes effective.

DATES: The effective date of this

regulation is November 28,1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

William C. Hill, Vehicle and Operations

Division, Office of Motor Carrier

Research and Standards, (202) 366–

4009, or Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of

the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–1354,

Federal Highway Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m.

to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

The FHWA is taking this action

largely in response to a finding of the

District of Columbia Circuit Court of

Appeals, infra. This final rule is

required to meet the FHWA’s

responsibility to maintain a system to

determine the safety fitness of motor

carriers operating in interstate

commerce, but the agency is considering

other means to achieve that goal.

Some commenters to this docket

argued that a performance-based system

modeled on SafeStat would be fair, and

perhaps preferable to the system

proposed in the FHWA’s May 28 NPRM,

infra, but that improvements are needed

in the generation and use of data.

The FHWA’s goal is to create a more

performance-based means of

determining when carriers are not fit to

conduct commercial motor vehicle

(CMV) operations safely in interstate

commerce. A future rating system using

a pass-fail test is conceivable. The

FHWA will publish an advanced notice

of proposed rulemaking shortly in the

Federal Register requesting comments

and supporting data on the future of a

rating system that can be used both in

making safety fitness determinations

and in meeting the demands of

shippers, insurers and other present and

potential users interested in evaluating

motor carrier performance.

Background

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit ruled on

March 19, 1997, that the FHWA’s

procedures for assigning safety ratings

were adopted contrary to law. MST

Express and Truckers United for Safety

v. Department of Transportation and

Federal Highway Administration, 108

F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The court

found the FHWA had failed to carry out

its statutory obligation to establish, by

regulation, a means of determining

whether a motor carrier has complied

with the safety fitness requirements of

the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984

(MCSA) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 31144)

because the SFRM had not been adopted

pursuant to notice and comment

rulemaking, as 49 U.S.C. 31144(a)

requires. The safety rating of MST

Express was determined using the

SFRM, and the petitioner’s conditional

safety rating was therefore vacated and

the matter remanded to the FHWA ‘‘for

such further action as it may wish to

take, consistent with the decision.’’