Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8217

Economy-wide effects of an

amendment to the NPL are aggregations

of efforts on firms and State and local

governments. Although effects could be

felt by some individual firms and States,

the total impact of this amendment on

output, prices, and employment is

expected to be negligible at the national

level, as was the case in the 1982 RIA.

Benefits

The real benefits associated with

today’s amendment are increased health

and environmental protection as a result

of increased public awareness of

potential hazards. In addition to the

potential for more Federally-financed

remedial actions, expansion of the NPL

could accelerate privately-financed,

voluntary cleanup efforts. Listing sites

as national priority targets also may give

States increased support for funding

responses at particular sites.

As a result of the additional CERCLA

remedies, there will be lower human

exposure to high-risk chemicals, and

higher-quality surface water, ground

water, soil, and air. These benefits are

expected to be significant, although

difficult to estimate in advance of

completing the RI/FS at these sites.

IV. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866

review.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires EPA to review the impacts of

this action on small entities, or certify

that the action will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. By small

entities, the Act refers to small

businesses, small government

jurisdictions, and nonprofit

organizations.

While this rule proposes to revise the

NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical

regulatory change since it does not

automatically impose costs. As stated

above, adding sites to the NPL does not

in itself require any action by any party,

nor does it determine the liability of any

party for the cost of cleanup at the site.

Further, no identifiable groups are

affected as a whole. As a consequence,

impacts on any group are hard to

predict. A site’s inclusion on the NPL

could increase the likelihood of adverse

impacts on responsible parties (in the

form of cleanup costs), but at this time

EPA cannot identify the potentially

affected businesses or estimate the

number of small businesses that might

also be affected.

The Agency does expect that placing

the sites in this proposed rule on the

NPL could significantly affect certain

industries, or firms within industries,

that have caused a proportionately high

percentage of waste site problems.

However, EPA does not expect the

listing of these sites to have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small businesses.

In any case, economic impacts would

occur only through enforcement and

cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes

at its discretion on a site-by-site basis.

EPA considers many factors when

determining enforcement actions,

including not only a firm’s contribution

to the problem, but also its ability to

pay. The impacts (from cost recovery)

on small governments and nonprofit

organizations would be determined on a

similar case-by-case basis.

For the foregoing reasons, I hereby

certify that this proposed rule would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, this proposed regulation does

not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE #18 GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county NPL Gr 1

FL Normandy Park Apartments .............................................................................................................. Temple Terrace ...... 6

KS Ace Services ...................................................................................................................................... Colby ...................... 5/6

LA Gulf State Utilities-North Ryan Street ................................................................................................ Lake Charles .......... 5

LA Old Citgo Refinery ............................................................................................................................. Bossier City ............ 5/6

LA Southern Shipbuilding ........................................................................................................................ Slidell ...................... 5/6

ME West Site/Hows Corners .................................................................................................................... Plymouth ................ 5/6

MI Bay City Middlegrounds ..................................................................................................................... Bay City .................. 5/6

1Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the final NPL.

Note: Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 7.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE #18 FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION

State Site name City/county NPL Gr 1

KS Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant .................................................................................................... DeSoto ................... 5/6

MD Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center ...................................................................................... Indian Head ............ 5/6

1Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the final NPL.

Note: Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facilities Section: 2.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Air pollution control, Chemicals,

Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental

relations, Natural resources, Oil

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Waste

treatment and disposal, Water pollution

control, Water supply.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9605; 42 U.S.C. 9620;

33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); E.O. 11735, 3 CFR,

1971–1975 Comp., p. 793; E.O. 12580, 3 CFR,

1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: February 8, 1995.

Elliott P. Laws,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 95–3601 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 94–158; FCC 94–352]

Operator Services Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.
8218 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

inquiry.

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted this

Notice of Proposed Rule Making and

Notice of Inquiry to solicit comment on

proposed changes to its rules and

policies governing operator service

providers (OSPs) and call aggregators.

The proposed rule changes are intended

to clarify existing OSP requirements,

and the notice of inquiry examines the

need for additional protection measures.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before March 9, 1995 and reply

comments must be submitted on or

before March 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, NW,

Washington, D. C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn Tatum Roddy, Enforcement

Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202)

418–0960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making and Notice of

Inquiry in CC Docket No. 94–158 [FCC

94–352], adopted December 28, 1994

and released February 8, 1995. The full

text of the Notice of Proposed Rule

Making and Notice of Inquiry is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

Dockets Reference Room, Room 239,

1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

The full text of this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s duplicating contractor,

International Transcription Services,

2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140,

Washington, D.C. 20037, (202) 857–

3800.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making and Notice of Inquiry

1. On December 28, 1994, the

Commission adopted a Notice of

Proposed Rule Making and Notice of

Inquiry in CC Docket No. 94–158, FCC

94–352, proposing changes to rules

governing the operator service providers

(OSPs) and call aggregators and

soliciting comments concerning the

need to reexamine certain issues

relating to OSPs in correctional

institutions and the need to establish a

time limit for updating consumer

information posted on or near aggregator

telephones. The proposed rule changes

are intended to clarify existing OSP

requirements, and the notice of inquiry

examines the need for additional

consumer protection measures.

2. The Commission adopted

comprehensive regulations governing

the practices and services of OSPs and

the call aggregators with whom they

contract to provide operator services

pursuant to the Telephone Operator

Consumer Services Improvement Act of

1990 (TOCSIA). TOCSIA established

rules concerning consumer information,

call blocking, restrictions on certain

charges, and equipment capabilities.

Further, the Commission established

minimum standards for OSPs to use in

routing and handling emergency

telephone calls. Subsequently, with the

Telecommunications Authorization Act

of 1992 (TAA), Congress amended

Section 226 (d)(4)(A) to require the

Commission to establish minimum

standards for aggregators, as well as

OSPs, to use in routing and handling

emergency calls.

3. Section 226(b)(1)(A) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended (Act), and Section 64.703(a)(1)

of the Commission’s rules (rules) require

an OSP to identify itself, audibly and

distinctly, to the consumer at the

beginning of each telephone call and

before the consumer incurs any charge

for the call. This identification is known

as ‘‘call branding.’’ Section 226(a)(4) of

the Act and Section 64.708(d) of the

Commission’s rules define a

‘‘consumer’’ as ‘‘a person initiating any

interstate telephone call using operator

services.’’ The Commission notes that

collect calls involve two parties making

choices and tentatively concludes that

both the calling party, who places the

call, and the called party, who must

accept the charges in order for the

message portion of the call to begin,

cooperatively initiate the call as

‘‘consumers’’ and should each receive a

‘‘brand’’ before they commence their

portions of the collect call transaction.

Thus, the Commission proposes to

amend Section 64.708(d) of the

Commission’s rules to redefine

‘‘consumer’’ to that effect and invites

interested parties to comment on this

proposed rule change. The Commission

specifically solicits data concerning

both the cost of compliance with this

proposed rule change and the ratio of

collect calls to all operator-assisted

calls.

4. Section 226(d)(4)(A) of the Act

directed the Commission to prescribe

regulations establishing minimum

standards for OSPs to use in routing and

handling emergency telephone calls. In

the Report and Order, CC Docket No.

90–313, 56 F R 18519 (April 23, 1991),

the Commission adopted Section 64.706

of the rules to implement this

requirement. This rule currently

requires that ‘‘[u]pon receipt of any

emergency telephone call, a provider of

operator services shall immediately

connect the call to the appropriate

emergency service of the reported

location of the emergency, if known,

and, if not known, of the originating

location of the call.’’ The TAA amended

Section 226(d)(4)(A) of the Act and

directed the Commission to establish

minimum standards for aggregators, as

well as OSPs, to use in routing and

handling emergency telephone calls. In

light of this amendment, the

Commission proposes to modify its

rules to require that aggregators be

subject to the same requirements for

routing and handling emergency calls

that apply to OSPs. The Commission

solicits comment on this proposed rule

change and whether the TAA or sound

public policy support the adoption of

additional requirements in order to

ensure the prompt and proper handling

of emergency calls from aggregator

locations.

5. In the Report and Order in CC

Docket No. 90–313, the Commission

examined the question of whether

correctional institutions providing

inmate-only telephones should be

excluded from the definition of

‘‘aggregator’’ and, therefore, exempt

from the requirements of TOSCIA and

the Commission’s implementing

regulations. The Commission concluded

that providing such telephones to

inmates presents an ‘‘exceptional set of

circumstances’’ that warrant their

exclusion from the definition of

‘‘aggregators’’ and ruled that inmateonly telephones would not be subject to

the requirements specified by TOCSIA

or the implementing rules. In light of

numerous informal complaints, the

Commission hereby initiates a Notice of

Inquiry concerning what changes, if

any, should be made to the rules

applicable to inmate-only telephones in

correctional institutions. The

Commission specifically seeks comment

on the needs of the inmate users, the

resources and needs of correctional

institutions in providing inmate

telephone service, and whether the

goals of Section 226 of the Act and the

public interest have been met through

the current treatment of inmate-only

telephones in correctional institutions.

6. The Commission also seeks

comment on whether to require a time

limit for updating consumer information

that is posted on aggregator telephones.

Section 226(c)(1)(A) of the

Communications Act and Section

64.703(b) of the Commission’s rules

require that each aggregator post on or

near the telephone instrument in plain

view of consumers: (1) the name,

address, and toll-free telephone number

of the provider of operator services; (2)

a written disclosure that the rates for all

operator-assisted calls are available on
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8219

request, and that consumers have a right

to obtain access to the interstate

common carrier of their choice and may

contact their preferred interstate

common carriers for information on

accessing that carrier’s service using

that telephone; and (3) the name and

address of the Enforcement Division of

the Common Carrier Bureau of the

Commission, to which the consumer

may direct complaints regarding

operator services. Neither the statute nor

the Commission’s rules specifies when

this notice must be changed to reflect a

change in the presubscribed carrier at

the telephone location. In response to

reports that some aggregators are not

promptly updating this consumer

information to reflect a change in the

presubscribed OSP, the Commission

seeks comment on the extent of this

problem, and whether a specific time

limit for updating the consumer

information is necessary or desirable.

7. The Commission asserts that this is

a non-restricted notice and comment

rule making proceeding. Ex parte

presentations are permitted, except

during the Sunshine Agenda period,

provided they are disclosed as provided

in Commission rules. See generally 47

CFR §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

8. The Commission certifies that the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does

not apply to this rule making

proceeding because if the proposed rule

amendments are promulgated, there will

not be a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small business

entities, as defined by Section 601(3) of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The

Commission has also directed the

Secretary to send a copy of the Notice

of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of

Inquiry, including the certification, to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration in

accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Ordering Clauses

9. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

1, 4(i), 4(j). 201–205, 218, 226, and

303(r) of the Communications Act, 47

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

218, 226, 303(r), a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry is

issued, proposing amendment of 47 CFR

§§ 64.706 and 64.708(d) as set forth

below.

10. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

§§ 1.415, 1.419, all interested parties

may file comments on the matters

discussed in this Notice and on the

proposed rules contained below by

March 9, 1995. Reply comments are due

by March 24, 1995. All relevant and

timely comments will be considered by

the Commission before final action is

taken in this proceeding. To file

formally in this proceeding, participants

must file an original and four copies of

all comments, reply comments, and

supporting comments. If participants

wish each Commissioner to have a

personal copy of their comments, an

original plus nine copies must be filed.

Comments and reply comments should

be sent to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the Dockets Reference

Room (Room 230) of the Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20554.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Communications Common Carrier,

Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Secretary.

Proposed Rules

Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

1. The authority citation for Part 64

continues to read as follows:

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

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

noted. Interpret or apply secs. 201–4, 218,

225, 226, 227, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended,

1077; 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 218, 225, 226, 227,

unless otherwise noted.

2. The heading of Subpart G is revised

to read as follows:

Subpart G—Furnishing of Enhanced

Services and Customer-Premises

Equipment by Communications

Common Carriers; Telephone Operator

Services; Pay-Per-Call Services

3. Section 64.706 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 64.706 Minimum standards for the

routing and handling of emergency

telephone calls.

Upon receipt of any emergency

telephone call, providers of operator

services and aggregators shall ensure

immediate connection of the call to the

appropriate emergency service of the

reported location of the emergency, if

known, and, if not known, of the

originating location of the call.

4. Section 64.708 is amended by

revising paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 64.708 Definitions.

* * * * *

(d) Consumer means a person

initiating any interstate telephone call

using operator services. In collect

calling arrangements, both the party on

the originating end of the call and the

party on the terminating end of the call

are consumers under this definition;

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–3493 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F