Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices 19255

document is available in the TSCA

nonconfidential information center

(NCIC), Rm. ETG–102 at the above

address between 12:00 noon and 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays. EPA may modify or

revoke the test marketing exemption if

comments are received which cast

significant doubt on its finding that the

test marketing activities will not present

an unreasonable risk of injury.

The following additional restrictions

apply to TMEs–95–1 and 95–2. A bill of

lading accompanying each shipment

must state that the use of the substances

is restricted to that approved in the

TMEs. In addition, the applicants shall

maintain the following records until five

years after the date they are created, and

shall make them available for inspection

or copying in accordance with section

11 of TSCA:

1. Records of the quantity of the

TME substance produced and the date

of manufacture.

2. Records of dates of the shipments

to each customer and the quantities

supplied in each shipment.

3. Copies of the bill of lading that

accompanies each shipment of the TME

substance.

TME–95–1

Date of Receipt: March 22, 1995. The

extended comment period will close

May 2, 1995.

Applicant: Confidential.

Chemical: (G) N,N′,N′′-

Triphenylmelamine derivative.

Use: (G) UV Absorber.

Production Volume: Confidential.

Number of Customers: Fifteen.

Test Marketing Period: Three years,

commencing on first day of commercial

manufacture.

Risk Assessment: EPA identified no

significant human health concerns for

the test market substance. The TME

substance is not expected to be toxic to

aquatic organisms at maximum

saturation in water. Therefore, the test

market activities will not present any

unreasonable risk of injury to human

health or the environment.

TME–95–2

Date of Receipt: March 23, 1995. The

extended comment period will close

(insert date 15 days after date of

publication in the Federal Register).

Applicant: Lubricant Additive

Research Co.

Chemical: (G) Synthetic Silver

Complex.

Use: (G) Lubricant Additive.

Production Volume: Confidential.

Number of Customers: Confidential.

Test Marketing Period: One year,

commencing on first day of commercial

manufacture.

Risk Assessment: EPA identified no

significant human health concerns for

the test market substance. Based on

Structure Activity Relationship (SAR)

analysis from data on similar

substances, EPA estimates that the TME

substance could be toxic to aquatic

organisms at a concentration of 1.0 parts

per billion. However, the TME

substance is not expected to be released

to surface waters during the

manufacturing, processing and use

scenarios described in the TME

application. Therefore, the test market

activities will not present any

unreasonable risk of injury to human

health or the environment.

The Agency reserves the right to

rescind approval or modify the

conditions and restrictions of an

exemption should any new information

that comes to its attention cast

significant doubt on its finding that the

test marketing activities will not present

any unreasonable risk of injury to

human health or the environment.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Test

marketing exemptions.

Dated: April 5, 1995.

Paul J. Campanella,

Chief, New Chemicals Branch, Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 95–9385 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[IAD File No. 94–102, FCC 95–19]

Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630

Numbering Plan Area Code by

Ameritech—Illinois

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Declaratory ruling and order.

SUMMARY: This Declaratory Ruling and

Order (Order) responds to a Request for

Declaratory Ruling and Order (Petition)

filed with the Federal Communications

Commission (Commission) on August 4,

1994, jointly by Mobilemedia

Communications, Inc., Paging Network,

Inc., and Page Mart, Inc. (Petitioners).

Petitioners objected to a plan developed

by Ameritech-Illinois (Ameritech) to

relieve an anticipated telephone number

shortage in the part of Illinois covered

by numbering plan area 708. Petitioners

contended portions of the Ameritech

plan violate the Communications Act

and industry guidelines. In the Order,

the Commission found the Ameritech

plan was unreasonably discriminatory

and otherwise unjust and unreasonable

in violation of the Communications Act.

In the Order, the Commission

declared the importance of

modernization of telecommunications

infrastructure, the introduction of new

technologies, the promotion of

competition, and the encouragement of

new interstate and international services

to meeting its goals under the

Communications Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurence Povich, Common Carrier

Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,

(202) 418–0953.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s

Declaratory Ruling and Order in

Common Carrier Bureau, IAD File No.

94–102, adopted January 12, 1995, and

released January 23, 1995, with

Commissioner Barrett issuing a

statement.

The complete text of the Order and

the statement is available for inspection

and copying between 9:00 AM and 4:00

PM during normal business days in the

Public Reference Room, Industry

Analysis Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, located on the Plaza Level at

1250 23rd Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. and may also be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service, at

2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140,

Washington, D.C. 20037. Telephone:

202–857–3800.

Synopsis of Declaratory Order

1. Background

As the largest local exchange carrier

in northern Illinois, Ameritech serves as

the administrator of numbering plan

area (NPA) 312 (serving Chicago) and

NPA 708 (which covers an adjacent

suburban area). NPAs are more

popularly known as ‘‘area codes.’’ In

early 1994, Ameritech announced that

the supply of central office codes within

NPA 708 was nearing exhaustion and

later presented its plan for relief of the

anticipated shortage. Central office (CO)

codes are the three-digit numbers that

follow the NPA and precede the fourdigit line number. Accordingly, each CO

code represents about 10,000 telephone

line numbers.

The Ameritech plan included the

following elements: Ameritech would

cease providing CO codes in NPA 708

to cellular and paging carriers and such

wireless carriers would be required to

‘‘give back’’ to Ameritech NPA 708 CO
19256 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices

codes currently assigned to them. NPA

708 CO office codes returned by

wireless carriers would then be used by

Ameritech to assign NPA 708 CO codes

to its own customers, to customers of

competitive access providers, and to

other wireline customers.

Ameritech would utilize a new NPA

(630) to create an overlay NPA. This

new overlay would cover the same

geographic area as the existing NPAs

708 and 312. With such an ‘‘overlay’’

arrangement, a customer in NPA 708 or

312 could be served by both the new

overlay NPA (630) and by its existing

NPA.

Until the new NPA (630) became

available, wireless customers requesting

CO codes for NPA 708 would have to

accept CO codes from NPA 312. When

the new NPA (630) became available,

wireless carriers would then be able to

obtain CO codes from either NPA 312 or

630 but not from NPA 708.

Ameritech petitioned the Illinois

Commerce Commission (ICC) on July

29, 1994, for approval of its plan.

Petitioners filed their Petition on August

4, 1994. The Commission issued a

Public Notice seeking comment. At the

release of the Order, the ICC had not yet

acted upon Ameritech’s petition.

2. Federal/State Jurisdiction

The Commission explained that the

Communications Act establishes a dual

regulatory system of telephone service

by granting to the Commission authority

to regulate interstate and foreign

commerce in wire and radio

communication while reserving to the

states jurisdiction with respect to

intrastate communications service.

While there was no need for the

Commission to take such action in this

case, the Commission did note there

might be future situations in which a

state’s regulation of a local exchange

carrier’s numbering activities could

raise the issue of preemption. However,

in this case, the Commission declined to

await the outcome of the ICC

proceedings because of the impact on

interstate and foreign

telecommunications; because of

violations of the Communications Act in

parts of Ameritech’s plan; and because

of the strong possibility that defects in

the Ameritech plan might be repeated in

the relief plans being drawn elsewhere.

3. Federal Policy Objectives

As indicated above, the Commission

declared the importance of

modernization of telecommunications

infrastructure, the introduction of new

technologies, and the encouragement of

new interstate and international services

to meeting its goals under the

Communications Act to make available

to all the people of the United States a

rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world

wide wire and radio communications

service.

The Commission identified

competition as the best means for

achieving these objectives and noted

that a uniform national system of

numbering is essential to the efficient

delivery of telecommunications

services. Because of the importance of

such a numbering system, the

Commission declared that NPA codes

and related central office codes should

be viewed as essential resources to be

shared as fairly and equitably as

possible by all carriers who require such

codes to offer telecommunications

services.

In addition, the Commission noted

that administration of the NANP

significantly affects the ease with which

new telecommunications services are

introduced by existing carriers and that

it should also facilitate marketplace

entry of new carriers by making

numbering resources available on an

efficient, timely basis.

The Commission, also stated that

successful number administration

should not unduly favor or disadvantage

any particular industry segment or

group of consumers, that number

administration should be largely

technology neutral, and that, as a result,

it should not unduly favor one

technology over another.

The Commission further determined

that number administrators must treat

all applicants for codes in an impartial

manner by providing telephone

resources to them in accordance with

the Act. Accordingly, each carrier’s

number administration practices and

services must be just, reasonable, and

not unreasonably discriminatory.

Measured against these principles, the

Commission found the Ameritech plan

to be deficient because it would

unreasonably discriminate against

wireless carriers and would, therefore,

violate these principles.

4. Unreasonable Discrimination

Petitioners alleged several parts of

Ameritech’s plan to be unreasonably

discriminatory in violation of Section

202(a) of the Communications Act, 47

U.S.C. 202(a): Ameritech’s proposal to

continue assigning NPA 708 codes to

wireline carriers while excluding paging

and cellular carriers from such

assignments (‘‘exclusion proposal’’);

Ameritech’s proposal to require only

paging and cellular carriers to take back

from their subscribers and return to

Ameritech all 708 telephone numbers

previously assigned to them while

wireline carriers would not be required

to do so (‘‘take back’’ proposal); and

Ameritech’s proposal to assign all new

numbers to paging and cellular

exclusively from the existing NPA 312

and the new NPA 630 while wireline

carriers (and perhaps others) may

continue to receive such assignments

from NPA 708 (‘‘segregation proposal’’).

While acknowledging such impacts

on paging and cellular carriers,

Ameritech denied its plan would result

in any unjust or unreasonable

discrimination. On the contrary,

Ameritech claimed its proposals were

necessary and reasonable because the

largest proportion of recent demand for

NPA 708 numbers had come from

wireless carriers; transfer of such

carriers to NPA 312 and later NPA 630

from NPA 708 would most significantly

decrease demand for increasingly scarce

NPA 708 numbers, and that such

transfer of carriers would not have a

significant impact on either their

customers, the network or the dialing

plan. Ameritech also contended its plan

did not unreasonably discriminate

because the plan treats alike all

providers of wireless services, including

Ameritech’s cellular affiliate, and

because having such wireless carriers

utilize NPA 312 CO codes instead of

NPA 708 CO codes was, in Ameritech’s

view, the only feasible conservation

measure. Because their customers’

wireless terminals do not have a fixed

(hard-wired) location on the public

switched telephone network, Ameritech

argued that paging and cellular carriers,

unlike wireline carriers, are able to

utilize NPA 312 CO codes within the

NPA 708 geographical area.

The Commission found that

Ameritech’s ‘‘exclusion,’’ ‘‘segregation,’’

and ‘‘take-back’’ proposals violate the

prohibition in the Act against unjust or

unreasonable discrimination.

5. Unjust, Unreasonable Conduct

Petitioners also contended that

Ameritech’s ‘‘exclusion,’’ ‘‘take back,’’

and ‘‘segregation’’ proposals would

constitute unjust and unreasonable

practices in violation of Section 201(b)

of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.

201(b). They further contended that

Ameritech’s plan violated applicable

industry guidelines because it did not

provide affected parties with a

meaningful opportunity to participate in

formulating the plan and because

Ameritech failed to give adequate

consideration to the impact of the plan

on paging carriers and their customers.

Ameritech asserted that it followed

applicable guidelines in formulating its

plan but that if the Commission finds

that the plan conflicts with such
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices 19257

guidelines, Ameritech argues that those

guidelines give it authority to refine

conservation procedures as necessary to

achieve code relief. Ameritech also

contended that in an emergency

situation such as the one faced in NPA

708, ‘‘first-come, first-serve’’ policies

must be suspended. The United States

Telephone Association contended any

conflict with such guidelines would not

be relevant because such guidelines

have not yet been formally adopted and

that, even if formal guidelines had been

adopted, compliance would be

voluntary.

The Commission found that

Ameritech’s ‘‘exclusion,’’ ‘‘take-back,’’

and ‘‘segregation’’ proposals represent

unjust and unreasonable practices under

Section 201(b) of the Communications

Act and therefore would be unlawful if

implemented. Specifically, the

Commission found that these three

facets of Ameritech’s plan prevent that

plan from achieving three important

objectives: (a) optimal dialing plan; (b)

minimal burden and (c) an

uninterrupted supply of codes and

related numbers. The Commission also

found that Ameritech’s justifications

were not persuasive because those

justifications could not override the fact

that these facets of the plan would

inhibit competition in the interstate

access market.

6. Delegated Authority

To facilitate future supervision of

numbering issues, the Commission

delegated authority to the Common

Carrier Bureau to resolve future number

resources allocation disputes. That

Bureau was directed to resolve such

issues in coordination with the Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau and other

Bureaus of the Commission.

7. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 1,

4(i), 201–205, and 403 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201–

205, ad 403, and pursuant to Section 1.2

of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.2,

it is ordered that the Request for

Declaratory Ruling filed by

Mobilemedia Communications, Inc.,

Paging Network, Inc., and Page Mart,

Inc., is granted in part and is otherwise

denied as set forth herein.

8. It is further ordered that

Ameritech’s Motion to accept late-filed

comments is hereby accepted.

9. It is further ordered that the

Request for Interlocutory Order filed by

Mobilemedia Communications, Inc.,

Paging Network, Inc., and Page Mart,

Inc., is denied as set forth herein.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9186 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Open Meeting, Board of Visitors for the

National Fire Academy

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, FEMA

announces the following committee

meeting:

NAME: Board of Visitors for the National

Fire Academy.

DATES OF MEETING: June 1–3, 1995.

PLACE: Building G Conference Room,

National Emergency Training Center,

Emmitsburg, Maryland.

TIME: June 1, 1995, 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.;

June 2, 1995, 8:30 a.m.–9:00 p.m.; June

3, 1995, 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.

PROPOSED AGENDA: June 1–3: Conduct

the On Campus Program Survey and

Review the Fiscal year 1995 and Fiscal

Year 1996 Budgets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting will be open to the public with

seating available on a first-come firstserved basis. Members of the general

public who plan to attend the meeting

should contact the Office of the

Superintendent, National Fire Academy,

U.S. Fire Administration, 16825 South

Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, MD 21727,

(301) 447–1117, on or before May 15,

1995.

Minutes of the meeting will be

prepared and will be available for

public viewing in the Office of the

Administrator, U.S. Fire

Administration, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Emmitsburg, MD

21727. Copies of the minutes will be

available upon request 30 days after the

meeting.

Dated: April 5, 1995.

Carrye B. Brown,

U.S. Fire Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–9390 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

The Federal Maritime Commission

hereby gives notice of the filing of the

following agreement(s) pursuant to

section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.

Interested parties may inspect and

obtain a copy of each agreement at the

Washington, D.C. Office of the Federal

Maritime Commission, 800 North

Capitol Street NW., 9th Floor. Interested

parties may submit comments on each

agreement to the Secretary, Federal

Maritime Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20573, within 10 days after the date

of the Federal Register in which this

notice appears. The requirements for

comments are found in § 572.603 of title

46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Interested persons should consult this

section before communicating with the

Commission regarding a pending

agreement.

Agreement No.: 202–011375–018.

Title: Trans-Atlantic Conference

Parties:

Atlantic Container Line AB

P&O Containers Limited

Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Hapag-Lloyd AG

Nedlloyd Lijnen BV

A.P. Moller-Maersk Line

Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd.

Mediterranean Shipping Company,

S.A.

DSR-Senator Lines

Polish Ocean Lines

Orient Overseas Container Line (UK)

Ltd.

Transportacion Maritima Mexicana,

S.A. de C.V.

Neptune Orient Lines Ltd.

Nippon Yusen Kaisha

Tecomar S.A. de C.V.

Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd

Synopsis: The proposed amendment

modifies ANNEX B—Space/Slot

Chartering and Equipment Exchange to

confine space/slot chartering operations

under the Agreement to ad hoc,

sporadic or emergency movements. This

provision complies with the

Commission’s Order Conditionally

Approving Settlement (dated March 2,

1995) in Fact Finding Investigation No.

21 and Dockets 94–29 and 94–30.

Agreement No.: 224–003800–014.

Title: City of Long Beach/California

United Terminals Terminal Agreement

Parties:

City of Long Beach California United

Terminals

Synopsis: The proposed amendment

provides for an adjustment of the

compensation payable for the five year

segment of the term commencing July 1,

1994 and ending June 30, 1999.

By Order of the Federal Maritime

Commission.