Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13637

accepted after the Commission’s

Sunshine Notice is issued announcing

initiation, by either a notice of inquiry

or notice of proposed rule making that

will be considered by the Commission

at a public meeting, of a proceeding

pertaining to that service or technology.

Alternatively, if the Commission

initiates a new proceeding pertaining to

a specific new spectrum-based service

or technology by notation, pioneer’s

preference requests will not be accepted

after such notice is submitted to the

Commission for vote.

(d) Pioneer’s preference requests

complying with the requirements and

procedures in paragraphs (a) through (c)

of this section will be accepted for filing

and listed by file number in a notice of

proposed rule making addressing the

new service or technology proposed in

the request, if such a notice of proposed

rule making is adopted. A final

determination on a request for pioneer’s

preference and its scope will normally

be made in a report and order adopting

new rules for the service or technology

proposed in the request, if such rules

are adopted. If awarded, the pioneer’s

preference will provide that the

preference applicant’s application for a

construction permit or license will not

be subject to mutually exclusive

applications. If granted, the construction

permit or license will be subject to the

conditions in paragraphs (f) and (g) of

this section.

(e) Any interested person may file a

statement in support of or in opposition

to a request for pioneer’s preference

listed in a notice of proposed rule

making, and a reply to such statements,

subject to filing deadlines that shall be

published in the notice of proposed rule

making. Statements on the merits of

pioneer’s preference requests must be

filed separate from, and not part of, any

comments on the rules proposed in the

notice of proposed rule making.

Statements on pioneer’s preference

requests will not be accepted prior to

issuance of the notice of proposed rule

making.

(f) As a condition of its license grant,

a pioneer’s preference grantee will be

required to construct a system that

substantially uses the design and

technologies upon which its pioneer’s

preference award is based within a

reasonable time, as determined by the

Commission, after receiving its license.

Failure to comply with this provision

will result in revocation of the pioneer

grantee’s license, and transfer of the

license will be prohibited until this

requirement is met.

(g) In services in which licenses are

assigned by competitive bidding, any

parties receiving pioneer’s preferences

will be required to pay for their licenses

in accord with the payment formula

specified in the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade legislation, Public

Law 103–465. This formula requires that

pioneers pay in a lump sum or in

installment payments over a period of

not more than five years 85 percent of

the average price paid for comparable

licenses. Comparable licenses will be

determined by the Commission on a

case-by-case basis.

* * * * *

3. Section 1.403 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 1.403 Notice and availability.

All petitions for rule making (other

than petitions to amend the FM,

Television, and Air-Ground Tables of

Assignments) meeting the requirements

of § 1.401 will be given a file number

and, promptly thereafter, a ‘‘Public

Notice’’ will be issued (by means of a

Commission release entitled ‘‘Petitions

for Rule Making Filed’’) as to the

petition, file number, nature of the

proposal, and date of filing. Petitions for

rule making are available at the

Commission’s Dockets Reference Center

(1919 M Street NW., Room 239,

Washington, DC).

PART 5—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO

SERVICES (OTHER THAN

BROADCAST)

1. The authority citation for part 5

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066,

1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

Interpret or apply sec. 301, 48 Stat. 1081, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. 301.

2. Section 5.207 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 5.207 Experiments performed in

conjunction with pioneer’s preference

applications.

An applicant for a pioneer’s

preference pursuant to § 1.402 of this

chapter may file an experimental license

application for a limited geographical

area, generally including no more than

one Metropolitan Statistical Area. In

order to be eligible for a preference at

the time of a report and order in a

proceeding addressing a new service or

technology, the experimental applicant

must demonstrate the technical

feasibility of its proposal by

summarizing its experimental results in

its preference application, unless it

instead submits an acceptable showing

of technical feasibility. If a pioneer’s

preference applicant wishes the

Commission to consider in conjunction

with the application experimental

material filed subsequent to the

application, the applicant must

summarize this material and submit the

summary to the Commission prior to the

Sunshine Notice announcing that a

report and order pertaining to the new

service or technology will be considered

by the Commission at a public meeting,

or—if a report and order is considered

by notation—prior to submission of the

report and order to the Commission for

vote. All experimental material must be

summarized and its relevance to the

pioneer’s preference application

explained in order for it to be

considered by the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–6081 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 61

[CC Docket No. 90–132; FCC 95–2]

Competition in the Interstate

Interexchange Marketplace

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this Memorandum Opinion

and Order, the Commission responded

to petitions for reconsideration filed in

response to the Interexchange Order

addressing the remaining issues raised

on reconsideration. The Interexchange

Order examined the state of competition

in the interstate interexchange

marketplace. At that time, the

Commission concluded that most

business services were subject to

substantial competition, and therefore

lifted or streamlined certain regulatory

restrictions on AT&T and other

Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). In this

Memorandum Opinion and Order, the

Commission generally affirmed the

various regulatory reforms adopted in

the Interexchange Order, with certain

minor clarifications and modifications.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin Werbach at (202) 418–1580,

Policy and Program Planning Division,

Common Carrier Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration adopted January 3,

1995, and release February 17, 1995.

The full text of this decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Dockets Branch (Room 239), 1919 M

Street NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M
13638 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Street NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC

20037.

Summary of Order

1. On August 1, 1991, the Commission

adopted the Interexchange Order (56 FR

55235 (Oct. 25, 1991)), concluding an

examination of the state of competition

in the interstate interexchange

marketplace and adapting its regulatory

policies in light of this competition. The

Commission in the Interexchange Order

found that most business services are

subject to substantial competition.

Based on this conclusion, the

Commission further streamlined its

regulation of most of AT&T’s business

services, while retaining price cap

regulation for two services that were

found to be less competitive—800

services and analog private line

services. The Commission also

authorized all interexchange carriers

(IXCs) to offer service pursuant to

individually-negotiated contract rates

that are generally available to similarly

situated customers. In addition, the

Commission eliminated

nondiscrimination reporting

requirements for AT&T services subject

to further streamlining, and the

requirement that AT&T submit annually

an independent audit report on its

installation and maintenance

procedures. Finally, the Commission

eliminated the comparably efficient

interconnection (CEI) filing

requirements and CEI parameters for

AT&T’s provision of enhanced services

that rely exclusively on basic services

subject to further streamlining.

2. Eleven parties filed petitions

seeking reconsideration of the

Interexchange Order. The Commission

addressed reconsideration requests

relating to the bundling of 800 services

and inbound services with other

services in prior orders. This

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration responds to the

remaining issues on reconsideration,

and reaffirms the Interexchange Order

with certain minor modifications.

3. The Commission affirmed its

decision to permit IXCs to offer services

pursuant to individually-negotiated

contracts. The Commission rejected

arguments that such ‘‘contract carriage’’

violated the Communications Act of

1934, that contract carriage would lead

to predatory behavior by AT&T, that the

presumption of lawfulness accorded

AT&T’s contract-based tariffs was

inconsistent with prior Commission

statements, that contract-based tariff

filings would provide insufficient

information about rates, and that

additional safeguards should be

imposed upon AT&T for its contractbased service offerings.

4. The Commission clarified its

decision to apply the ‘‘substantial

cause’’ test to tariff revisions that alter

material terms and conditions of a longterm contract. In the Interexchange

Order, the Commission noted that tariff

revisions by dominant carriers altering

material terms and conditions of a longterm service tariff are considered

reasonable only if the carrier can make

a showing of substantial cause for the

revisions. The Commission cited earlier

decisions as holding that the same test

applies to tariff revisions that alter

material terms and conditions of a longterm contract. In response to petitions

for reconsideration, the Commission

first noted that it was unlikely that

AT&T would seek to unilaterally modify

a contract-based tariff, as such action

could damage its relationship with its

customers. The Commission then

explained that it would consider on a

case-by-case basis in light of all relevant

circumstances whether a substantial

cause showing has been made. The

Commission concluded that commercial

contract law principles are highly

relevant—but not necessarily

determinative—to such a decision.

5. The Commission refused to impose

additional safeguards to ensure that

AT&T’s provision of ‘‘customized’’

services, such as Tariff 12 and contract

services, does not impede competition

in the customer premises equipment

(CPE) marketplace. The Commission

concluded that no party had

demonstrated that customers are

unaware of the relevant CPE bundling

rules, and that it has not been presented

with any evidence that systems

integrators have been denied access to

customized service arrangements.

6. The Commission modified its

decision in the Interexchange Order to

eliminate comparably efficient

interconnection (CEI) requirements for

AT&T’s provision of enhanced services

that rely exclusively on basic services

subject to further streamlined

regulation. The Commission concluded

that the distinction made in the

Interexchange Order between

streamlined services that are coupled

with nonstreamlined services, and those

that are not, was without a valid basis

and should be abandoned.

Consequently, the Commission lifted

CEI requirements for any streamlined

service provided by AT&T. AT&T was

required to file a CEI plan explaining

how it will comply with CEI parameters

for nonstreamlined services only, for

any enhanced service that AT&T

proposes to provide that relies on both

streamlined and nonstreamlined

services.

7. The Commission denied requests

that it prohibit AT&T from including

nonstreamlined services in its Tariff 12

offerings, or that the Commission apply

its bundling restrictions on 800 and

inbound services to other

nonstreamlined services. The

Commission noted that its rationale for

prohibiting AT&T from including 800

and inbound services in future contractbased tariffs or Tariff 12s pending 800

number portability was based on

specific findings about AT&T ability to

leverage its competitive advantage in

the 800 marketplace. There are

sufficient distinctions, the Commission

concluded, between 800 services and

other nonstreamlined services, and

between contract-based tariffs and Tariff

12 offerings, to justify the policies

adopted in the Interexchange Order.

8. Finally, the Commission addressed

concerns related to its treatment of

analog private line service. The

Commission denied requests to

reconsider what it meant by the term

‘‘analog private line service.’’ The

Commission did, however, order AT&T

to remove analog private line services

provided to government entities through

contractual arrangements from Basket 3.

This modification was designed to limit

AT&T’s ability to subsidize rate

decreases in some Basket 3 services

with rate increases in other analog

private line rate elements. In light of

this decision, the Commission

recalibrated the price cap index (PCI)

and the actual price index (API) for

Basket 3 to reflect the removal of all

analog private line services provided

under contract to government entities

from this basket.

Ordering Clauses

1. Accordingly, pursuant to authority

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

405 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201–

205, 405, It Is Ordered that the policies,

rules and requirements set forth herein

Are Adopted, and Part 61 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR Part 61, Is

Amended as set forth in below, effective

April 13, 1995.

2. It is further ordered That the

petitions for reconsideration of AT&T,

Ad Hoc, ARINC, Alascom, Broadcast

Coalition, Citicorp, CompTel, IDCMA,

MCI, Sprint and WilTel are Granted in

Part and Denied in Part.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 61

Communications common carriers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Telephone.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13639

Amendatory Text

Title 47 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 61 is amended as

follows:

PART 61—TARIFFS

1. The authority citation for part 61

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201–205, and

403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as

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

205, and 403, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 61.42(b)(3) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 61.42 Price cap baskets and service

categories.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) The business services basket shall

contain analog private lines, including

analog voice grade private line, unless

provided under contract to a

government entity, and terrestrial

television transmission service.

* * * * *

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5786 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 1

[OST Docket No. 1; Amdt. 1–267]

Organization and Delegation of Powers

and Duties Delegations to the Federal

Railroad Administrator

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule delegates the

Secretary of Transportation’s authority

to the Federal Railroad Administrator to

provide financial assistance for highspeed rail corridor planning and

technology improvements, to

promulgate necessary safety regulations,

and to effectuate the redemption of

outstanding obligations and liabilities

with respect to the Columbus and

Greenville Railway. This rule is

necessary to reflect the delegation in the

Code of Federal Regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes

effective March 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gareth W. Rosenau, Attorney, Office of

Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad

Administration, (202) 366–0620, or

Steven B. Farbman, Office of the

Assistant General Counsel for

Regulation and Enforcement (C–50),

(202) 366–9306, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document delegates authority to the

Federal Railroad Administrator to

implement the ‘‘Swift Rail Development

Act of 1994,’’ being Title I—High-Speed

Rail of Public Law 103–440 (108 Stat.

4615) (the ‘‘Act’’). The Act provides for

high-speed rail assistance for corridor

planning and technology improvements

and authorizes appropriations for fiscal

years 1995 through 1997. The Act

provides for the promulgation of such

safety regulations as may be necessary

for high-speed rail services. The Act

also provides for the redemption of

outstanding obligations and liabilities

with respect to the Columbus and

Greenville Railway under sections 505

and 511 of the Railroad Revitalization

and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45

U.S.C. 825 and 831, respectively). Since

this rule relates to departmental

management, organization, procedure,

and practice, notice and public

comment are unnecessary. For the same

reason, good cause exists for not

publishing this rule at least 30 days

before its effective date, as is ordinarily

required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Therefore,

this rule is effective on the date of its

publication.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1

Authority delegations (Government

agencies), Organizations and functions

(Government agencies).

In consideration of the foregoing, Part

1 of Title 49, Code of Federal

Regulations, is amended as follows:

PART 1—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 1

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; Public Law 101–

552, 28 U.S.C. 2672, 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2).

2. Section 1.49 is amended by adding

a new paragraph (jj) to read as follows:

§ 1.49 Delegations to Federal Railroad

Administrator.

* * * * *

(jj) Exercise the authority vested in

the Secretary by the Swift Rail

Development Act of 1994, being Title

I—High-Speed Rail of Public Law 103–

440 (108 Stat. 4615), as it relates to the

provision of financial assistance for

high-speed rail corridor planning and

technology improvements, the

promulgation of necessary safety

regulations, and the redemption of

outstanding obligations and liabilities

with respect to the Columbus and

Greenville Railway under Sections 505

and 511 of the Railroad Revitalization

and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45

U.S.C. 825 and 831, respectively).

Issued at Washington, DC this 3rd day of

March 1995.

Federico Pen ̃ a,

Secretary of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 95–6222 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 93–87; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF03

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Metric Conversion

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends

selected Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards (FMVSS) by converting

English measurements specified in

those standards to metric

measurements. This rulemaking is the

first of several that NHTSA will

undertake to implement the statutory

Federal policy that the metric system is

the preferred system of weights and

measures for U.S. trade and commerce.

The conversions are not intended to

change the stringency of the affected

FMVSS.

DATES: This final rule is effective March

14, 1996. Optional early compliance

with the changes made in this final rule

is permitted beginning March 14, 1995.

Petitions for reconsideration of this

final rule must be filed by April 13,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

of this final rule should refer to the

docket and notice number cited in the

heading of this final rule and be

submitted to: Administrator, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590. It is requested but not

required, that 10 copies be submitted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Kevin Cavey, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr.

Cavey’s telephone number is: (202) 366–

5271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

5164 of the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act (Pub. L. 100–418),

makes it United States policy that the

metric system of measurement is the