Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15867

9This survey has been placed on the public

record, and is available from the Commission’s

Public Reference Branch, Room, 130, Washington,

DC 20580; 202–326–2222; TTY for the hearing

impaired 202–326–2502.

10The petition and the Commission’s response

have been placed on the public record, and are

available from the Commission’s Public Reference

Branch, Room 130, Washington, DC 20580; 202–

326–2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202–326–

2502.

The survey results suggest that most

consumers obtain a copy of their contact

lens prescription. Approximately 60%

(147/250) of those interviewees did

receive a copy of their contact lens

prescription either immediately after

their last exam or subsequently

thereafter. Moreover, the survey results

indicate that nearly all practitioners

who are requested to release the contact

lens prescription to the consumer, do

so. Approximately 92% (66/72) of those

consumers who requested a copy of

their contact lens prescription received

the prescription either immediately after

the eye examination or subsequently

thereafter.9

Based on the results of the survey as

well as the existence of industry

literature continuing to raise quality of

care issues relating to unsupervised use

of contact lenses, the Commission

denied the petition.10

Part B—Issues for Comments

The Commission solicits written

public comments on the following

questions:

1. Is there a continuing need for the

rule?

a. What benefits has the rule provided

to purchasers of eye exams and

eyeglasses, to opticians or to others

affected by the rule?

b. Has the rule imposed costs on

purchasers?

2. What changes, if any, should be

made to the rule to increase the benefits

of the rule to purchasers, opticians or to

others?

a. How would these changes affect the

costs the rule imposes on eye care

practitioners (optometrists and

ophthalmologists) subject to its

requirements?

3. What significant burdens or costs,

including costs of compliance, has the

rule imposed on eye care practitioners?

a. Has the rule provided benefits to

such practitioners?

4. What changes, if any, should be

made to the rule to reduce the burdens

or costs imposed on eye care

practitioners?

a. How would these changes affect the

benefits provided by the rule?

5. Does the rule overlap or conflict

with other federal, state, or local laws or

regulations?

6. Since the rule was issued, what

effects, if any, have changes in relevant

technology or economic conditions had

on the rule?

Section 456.2(a)—Prescription Release

Requirement

7. If the rule is retained, should the

Commission modify the prescription

release requirement of § 456.2(a) to

require that an eyeglass prescription be

given to a patient only if the patient

requests it, rather than in every

instance, or should this provision be

modified in some other way?

a. Are consumers generally aware of

their ability to seek and obtain their

eyeglass prescriptions?

b. To what extent are consumers able

to obtain a copy of their eyeglass

prescription if they request one?

c. To what extent would practitioners

release eyeglass prescriptions in the

absence of any federal requirement to do

so?

Section 456.2(d)—Waivers and

Disclaimers

8. Should any changes be made to

§ 456.2(d)’s prohibition on the use of

certain waivers or disclaimers of

liability, and/or the Commission

interpretation thereof?

a. What problems, if any, has the

current requirement, and/or its

interpretation, caused?

b. How could any such problems be

remedied?

Contact Lens Prescriptions

9. Should the rule be extended to

require the release of contact lens

prescriptions?

a. Are consumers able to get their

contact lens prescriptions upon request?

b. What evidence is there to show that

refusal to release contact lens

prescriptions does or does not have

benefits justifying the refusal?

Specifically, are there any significant

administrative costs incurred when

releasing contact lens prescriptions?

What evidence is there to show that

there is or is not a danger that the lenses

may not conform to the eye as expected,

thus justifying a refusal to release

contact lens prescriptions to permit the

fitter to verify the fit of the lens?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 456

Advertising; Medical devices;

Ophthalmic goods and services; Trade

practices.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58.

By direction of the Commission.

Benjamin I. Berman,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8494 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATION

36 CFR Part 1258

RIN 3095–AA71

NARA Reproduction Fee Schedule;

Correction

AGENCY: National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking;

correction.

SUMMARY: NARA is correcting a

typographical error in the notice of

proposed rulemaking published on

March 31, 1997, setting out the

proposed revised NARA reproduction

fee schedule. In that document, the

proposed fee for orders of additional

paper-to-paper copies placed at a

Washington, DC, facility was correctly

stated as $5 for each additional block of

20 copies in the preamble, but was

stated as $5 for each additional block of

up to 10 copies in the proposed

§ 1258.12(b)(2)(ii).

Correction

In the proposed rule published in the

Federal Register on March 31, 1997 (61

FR 15137), on page 15138, in the second

column, proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of

§ 1258.12 is corrected to read as follows:

§ 1258.12 [Corrected]

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) All other orders placed at a

Washington, DC, area facility: $10 for

the first 1–20 copies; $5 for each

additional block of up to 20 copies.

* * * * *

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Nancy Y. Allard,

Alternate Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 97–8636 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN53–1b; FRL–5710–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

proposing to approve the following as

revisions to the Indiana ozone State

Implementation Plan (SIP): A rate-of-
15868 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

progress (ROP) plan to reduce volatile

organic compounds (VOC) emissions in

Lake and Porter Counties by 15 percent

(%) by November 15, 1996; a

contingency plan to reduce VOC

emissions by an additional 3% beyond

the ROP plan, and an Indiana agreed

order requiring VOC emission controls

on Keil Chemical Division, Ferro

Corporation, located in Lake County

(Keil Chemical). The 15% ROP plan, 3%

contingency plan, and the agreed order

were submitted together on June 26,

1995. The plans will help to protect the

public’s health and welfare by reducing

the emissions of VOC that contribute to

the formation of ground-level ozone,

commonly known as urban smog. In the

final rules section of this Federal

Register, the EPA is approving this

action as a direct final rule without

prior proposal because EPA views this

as a noncontroversial action and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to that direct final rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received on or before May 5,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR18–J),

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State submittal are

available for inspection at: Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR18–J), Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark J. Palermo, Environmental

Protection Specialist, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR18–J), Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 886–6082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule published in the rules section

of this Federal Register.

Dated: February 19, 1997.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8384 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 63

[IB Docket No. 96–261, DA 97–440]

International Settlement Rates

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: On December 19, 1996 the

Federal Communications Commission

released a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in the matter of

International Settlement Rates, FCC No.

96–484 (61 FR 68702, December 30,

1996). In response to a request for an

extension of time, on February 27, 1997,

the Commission released an order

granting an extension of time for filing

reply comments in this proceeding.

DATES: Reply comments must be

submitted on or before March 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All supplemental comments

and supplemental reply comments

should be addressed to: Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, Washington DC 20554. All

supplemental comments and

supplemental reply comments will be

available for public inspection during

regular business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239) of the

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC

20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Giusti, Attorney-Advisor, Policy

and Facilities Branch,

Telecommunications Division,

International Bureau, (202) 418–1407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. On February 21, 1997, the Republic

of Panama filed a motion to extend the

reply comment date in the captioned

proceeding from March 10, 1997 to

April 14, 1997. The Republic of Panama

contends that the current schedule

provides it insufficient time to prepare

informed reply comments for two

reasons. First, the Republic of Panama

asserts that the failure of the

Commission’s Record Imaging

Processing System (‘‘RIPS’’) has made it

difficult for it and other interested

parties to obtain a complete set of the

comments filed in this proceeding.

Second, the Republic of Panama states

that it needs more time to review the

recent agreement of the World Trade

Organization’s Group on Basic

Telecommunications and assess the

agreement’s impact on the proposals

made in this proceeding.

2. Although we do not routinely grant

extensions of time, See 47 CFR § 1.46(a),

we believe that extending the reply

comment date in this case will serve the

public interest by allowing the Republic

of Panama and other interested parties

adequate time to review and reply to

any comments that they had difficulty

in obtaining because of the failure of

RIPS. We believe that an extension to

March 31, 1997 will provide sufficient

time for interested parties to complete

their reply comments. Interested parties

may obtain copies of the comments filed

in this proceeding from the

Commission’s Reference Center, 1919 M

Street NW., Room 239, Washington, DC

20554. Copies of the comments filed in

this proceeding are also available for

purchase from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, Inc. (‘‘ITS’’), 2100 M Street

NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

In order to compensate further for the

RIPS outage, we will place copies of the

comments filed in this proceeding in the

International Bureau Reference Center,

Room 102, 2000 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

3. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant

to sections 4(i), 4(j) and 5(c) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

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

155(c), and sections 0.51, 0.261, and

1.46 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

0.51, 0.261, and 1.46, that the reply

comment date in the captioned

proceeding is extended from March 10,

1997 to March 31, 1997.

4. It is further ordered, pursuant to

sections 4(i), 4(j) and 5(c) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

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

155(c), and sections 0.51, 0.261, and

1.46 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

0.51, 0.261, and 1.46, that the Republic

of Panama’s motion to extend the reply

comment date is granted to the extent it

requests additional time up to March 31,

1997, but is denied to the extent it

requests additional time beyond that

date.