Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 63491

Issued this 24th day of November at

Washington, DC.

Mortimer L. Downey,

Deputy Secretary of Transportation.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Office of the Secretary of

the U.S. Department of Transportation

proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 52 as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1552; 49 U.S.C. 108;

Pub. L. 101–225, 103 Stat. 1908, 1914.

2. Section 52.67 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 52.67 Reconsideration.

(a) Reconsideration of an application

for correction of a military record shall

occur if an applicant requests it and the

request meets the requirements set forth

in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this

section.

(1) An applicant presents evidence or

information that was not previously

considered by the Board that could

result in a determination other than that

originally made. Evidence or

information may only be considered if

it could not have been presented to the

Board prior to its original determination

if the applicant had exercised

reasonable diligence; or

(2) An applicant presents evidence or

information that the Board, or the

Secretary as the case may be, committed

legal or factual error in the original

determination that could have resulted

in a determination other than that

originally made.

(b) The Chairman shall docket a

request for reconsideration of a final

decision if it meets the requirements of

paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.

If neither of these requirements is met,

the Chairman shall not docket such

request.

(c) The Board shall consider each

application for reconsideration that has

been docketed. None of the Board

members who considered an applicant’s

original application for correction shall

participate in the consideration of that

applicant’s application for

reconsideration.

(d) Action by the Board on a docketed

application for reconsideration is

subject to § 52.64(b).

(e) An applicant’s request for

reconsideration must be filed within

two years after the issuance of a final

decision, except as otherwise required

by law. If the Chairman dockets an

applicant’s request for reconsideration,

the two-year requirement may be

waived if the Board finds that it would

be in the interest of justice to consider

the request despite its untimeliness.

[FR Doc. 95–29345 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SC–029–1–7177b; FRL–5316–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans State of South

Carolina’s State Implementation Plan

(SIP)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of South

Carolina for the purpose of establishing

a Federally enforceable state

construction and operating permit

(FESCOP) program. In order to extend

the Federal enforceability of South

Carolina’s FESCOP to hazardous air

pollutants (HAPs), EPA is also

proposing approval of South Carolina’s

FESCOP regulations pursuant to section

112 of the Clean Air Act as amended in

1990 (CAA). In the Final Rules Section

of this Federal Register, EPA is

approving the State’s SIP revision as a

direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial revision amendment

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 this proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATE: To be considered, comments must

be received by January 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Scott Miller, Air

Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides &

Toxics Mangement Division, Region 4

Environmental Protection Agency, 345

Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia

30365.

Copies of the material submitted by

the State of South Carolina may be

examined during normal business hours

at the following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345

Courtland Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30365.

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull

Street, Columbia, South Carolina

29201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Miller, Air Programs Branch, Air,

Pesticides & Toxics Management

Division, Region 4 Environmental

Protection Agency, 345 Courtland

Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The

telephone number is 404/347–3555

extension 4153.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: September 20, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30107 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 91–281; FCC 95–480]

Calling Number Identification

Service—Caller ID

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On November 30, 1995, the

Commission adopted a Fourth Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth NPRM)

addressing numerous petitions for

waiver of its Caller ID rules. The Fourth

NPRM is intended to address issues

associated with requiring carriers to

deploy blocking capabilities. It seeks

comment on whether local exchange

carriers (LECs) must pass calling party

number (CPN) if they use particular

switches that do not have CLASS

software installed.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before December 27, 1995, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

January 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.
63492 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Specht, Senior Engineer,

Network Services Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–2378 or

Elizabeth Nightingale, Attorney,

Network Services Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–2352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

summarizes the Commission’s Fourth

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the

matter of Calling Number Identification

Service—Caller ID, (CC Docket No. 91–

281, FCC 95–480, adopted November

30, 1995 and released December 1,

1995). The file is available for

inspection and copying during the

weekday hours of 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in

the Commission’s Reference Center,

room 239, 1919 M St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C., or copies may be

purchased from the Commission’s

duplicating contractor, ITS, Inc. 2100 M

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

20037, phone (202) 857–3800.

Analysis of Proceeding

On May 5, 1995, the Commission

affirmed its finding that interstate

delivery of a calling party’s number is

in the public interest. The Commission

noted that widespread availability of

CPN promotes new services, consistent

with Commission responsibilities under

Section 1 and 7 of the Communications

Act and benefits the public by enabling

consumers to conduct telephone

transactions more efficiently. The

Commission also continued to recognize

the importance of balancing the benefits

of such widespread availability with the

privacy interests of calling and called

parties and the need for reasonable

consumer education. The Commission

affirmed rules that require carriers with

Signalling System 7 (SS7) call set up

capability to transport CPN to

interconnecting carriers without

additional charge. The Commission also

affirmed rules that require originating

carriers to recognize *67 as the first

three digits of a call as a caller’s request

for privacy. The Commission permitted

per line blocking where state policy

allows and established rules that

carriers providing per line blocking

services recognize *82 as a caller’s

request that privacy not be provided.

Additionally, the Commission affirmed

rules that require carriers to notify

customers with respect to *67 and *82

capabilities.

Over the past several months, the

Commission has received numerous

requests from petitioners seeking

waivers, stays or declaratory rulings of

the Commission’s caller ID rules. On

October 30, 1995, the Commission

released an Order that addressed some

of these requests for relief. See Rules

and Policies Regarding Calling

Numbering Identification Service—

Caller ID, Order, CC Docket No. 91–281,

FCC 95–446, released October 30, 1995.

On November 30, 1995, the Common

Carrier Bureau, pursuant to delegated

authority, adopted an Order that

addressed the remaining petitions for

relief. See Rules and Policies Regarding

Calling Number Identification Service—

Caller ID, Order, CC Docket No. 91–281,

DA 95–2415 (Com. Car. Bur. adopted

November 30, 1995).

The Fourth NPRM tentatively

concludes that LEC switches not

equipped with CLASS software should

not be required to pass CPN and that

they should be permitted to pass it only

if they can provide the blocking and

unblocking capabilities specified in

Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission’s

rules. The Fourth NPRM seeks comment

on its tentative conclusions, and

specifically on the economic feasibility

of adding blocking and unblocking

capabilities to switches already able to

pass CPN.

Ordering Clauses

It is further ordered, pursuant to

Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201–205, 218 of

the Communications Act as amended,

47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201–205,

and 218, that notice is hereby given of

the proposed changes in policies

regarding the application of caller ID

rules to switches without CLASS

software, and comment is invited on

this proposal.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Calling party telephone number,

Communications common carriers,

Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30051 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 95–174; FCC 95–472]

Cable Television Act of 1992

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking seeks comment on

proposed methods for cable operators’

setting of uniform rates for uniform

services offered in multiple franchising

areas. The Commission is exploring this

issue to solicit comment on possibly

permitting operators to establish

uniform rates. The item will help the

Commission create a record on this

issue, which will assist the Commission

in designing new or amending current

regulations to allow operators to

establish uniform rates.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

January 12, 1996 and reply comments

are due on or before February 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Walke, (202) 416–0847.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of

this document is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20554, and may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, (202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street

NW., Washington, DC 20037.

[CS Docket No. 95–174]

In the matter of Implementation of Sections

of the Cable Television Consumer Protection

and Competition Act of 1992—Rate

Regulation Uniform Rate-Setting

Methodology.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Adopted: November 28, 1995.

Released: November 29, 1995.

By the Commission:

Comment Date: January 12, 1996.

Reply Comment Date: February 12,

1996.

I. Introduction

1. Under the Commission’s cable

service rate regulations, a cable operator

serving multiple franchise areas must

establish maximum permitted service

rates in each franchise area. These rates

often vary from franchise area to

franchise area, even if each area receives

the identical package of program

services. This outcome may cause

needless confusion for subscribers, as

well as unnecessary administrative

burdens for cable companies. In

addition, a cable operator’s ability to

market its product on a regional basis

may be hindered. Therefore, in this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(‘‘NPRM’’), we explore the design and

implementation of an optional ratesetting methodology under which a

cable operator could establish uniform

rates for uniform cable service tiers

offered in multiple franchise area.

II. Background

2. Under the Cable Television

Consumer Protection and Competition

Act of 1992 (the ‘‘1992 Cable Act’’), the

rates charged by a cable system are