26466 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

where novel questions of fact, law or

policy are not involved. Also, the

addition of new Marine VHF frequency

coordination committee(s) to § 80.514 of

this chapter need not be referred to the

Commission if they do not involve

novel questions of fact, policy or law, as

well as requests by the United States

Coast Guard to designate radio

protection areas for mandatory Vessel

Traffic Services (VTS) and establish

marine channels as VTS frequencies for

these areas.

PART 80—STATIONS IN THE

MARITIME SERVICES

3. The authority citation for Part 80

continues to read as follows:

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

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

otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat.

1064–1068, 1081–1105, as amended; 47

U.S.C. 151–155, 301–609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST

4726, 12 UST 2377.

4. Section 80.383 is amended by

revising the entries for 156.550 MHz

and 156.600 MHz in the table in

paragraph (a) and adding new

paragraphs (b)(7) and (b)(8) to read as

follows:

80.383 Vessel Traffic Services (VTS)

system frequencies.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

VESSEL TRAFFIC CONTROL

FREQUENCIES

Carrier

frequencies

(MHz)

Geographic areas

* * * * *

156.550 New York, New Orleans,1 Houston, Prince William Sound,3 Berwick Bay.

156.600 New York, New Orleans,1 Houston, San Francisco,3 Sault Ste.

Marie.3

* * * * *

1 Until further notice, this frequency is available for use as permitted by § 80.373(f), notwithstanding the provisions of footnote 3 that

are applicable to the VTS system. Availability

is a result of the closure of the VTS system for

the port area of New Orleans. If the United

States Coast Guard re-establishes this system, the Commission may require operations

pursuant to such conditional licenses for this

frequency to cease, or may choose not to

renew such conditional licenses. All licenses

for this frequency will be expressly conditional

upon the continued availability of the frequency for non-VTS use.

* * * * *

3Private coast station licenses for the use of

this frequency in this area will expire at the

end of the current license term or five years

after the adopted date of the final rule, whichever comes first. Continued use until expiration must be on a noninterference basis to

Coast Guard VTS communications.

(b) * * *

(7) Sault Ste. Marie. The rectangle

between North latitudes 45 degrees and

47 degrees, and West longitudes 83

degrees and 85 degrees.

(8) Berwick Bay. The rectangle

between North latitudes 28 degrees 30

minutes and 30 degrees 30 minutes, and

West longitudes 90 degrees 50 minutes

and 92 degrees.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–13099 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 91–35; FCC 96–131]

Operator Service Access and Pay

Telephone Compensation

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Where technically feasible

and economically reasonable, the

Commission’s Third Report and Order

requires local exchange carriers (LECs)

to make international call blocking

services available to non-aggregator

business customers as well as to those

businesses that qualify as aggregators

under the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended by The Telephone Operator

Consumer Services Improvement Act of

1990. The Commission extended the

availability of these services to nonaggregator business customers to assist

these customers in reducing losses

attributable to international toll fraud.

The Commission Order states,

however, that LECs will not be required

to provide similar international blocking

to residential customers, whether to

prevent international toll fraud or to

control access to international dial-aporn. Although LECs may elect to offer

these services to their residential

customers, the Commission declined to

require that these services be made

available to residences because it was

not clear that such a new residential

service would be technically feasible

and economically reasonable. It was

also unclear to what extent such a

residential blocking service would be

effective in limiting toll fraud and

access to dial-a-porn.

In addition, the Commission Order

requires LECs to file federal tariffs for

both billed number screening (BNS) and

originating line screening (OLS)

‘‘confirmation screening services’’ that

allow aggregators to ensure that the

proper screening codes are associated

with their telephone lines. The Order

specifies that the OLS service must

deliver a code that discretely identifies

private payphones and such other codes

as are necessary to identify other

categories of aggregator locations. The

Order also stresses that it is important

for LECs to use uniform codes for their

OLS services. The Order further requires

LECs to unbundle their OLS

‘‘confirmation services,’’ unless they can

show either that bundling would not

place aggregators at a competitive

disadvantage or that it would not be

technically feasible or would be

economically unreasonable to unbundle

these ‘‘confirmation services.’’ It also

requires LECs to unbundle the BNS

‘‘confirmation services’’ that they

provide to aggregators under federal

tariff and to make those services

available to both aggregators and nonaggregators. Finally, it specifies a rate

structure for features of OLS and BNS

service provided to aggregators.

The Commission Order requires that

LECs include these screening services in

their federal tariffs and specifies a rate

structure for service to aggregators

because the Commission found these

services were not uniformly available to

aggregators under existing LEC state

tariffs and because these services were

not always adequate when made

available under those tariffs.

As a result of the Commission Order,

non-aggregator, as well as aggregator,

business customers of LECs gain access

to international call blocking services

offered under federal tariffs. In addition,

aggregator business customers will have

greater access to uniform and discrete

OLS screening codes and to unbundled

OLS ‘‘confirmation services.’’ Also, the

Commission Order results in both

aggregators and non-aggregators having

access to unbundled BNS ‘‘confirmation

services’’ under federal tariffs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas David, Accounting and Audits

Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202)

418–0800, or Allen A. Barna,

Competitive Pricing Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–1530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Third

Report and Order adopted March 25,

1996, and released April 5, 1996. The

full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Public Reference Room (Room

230), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26467

D.C. The complete text of this decision

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

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

Washington, D.C. 20037.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:

The Commission has determined that

Section 605(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

does not apply to these rules because

they do not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The definition of a ‘‘small

entity’’ in Section 3 of the Small

Business Act excludes any business that

is dominant in its field of operation.

Although some of the LECs that will be

affected are very small, such LECs do

not qualify as ‘‘small entities’’ because

each has a monopoly on ubiquitous

access to the subscribers in their service

area. The Commission has also found all

exchange carriers to be dominant in its

competitive carrier proceeding. See

Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for

Competitive Common Carrier Services

and Facilities Authorization Therefore,

CC Docket No. 79–252, First Report and

Order, 85 FCC 2d 1, 23–24 (1980), 45 FR

76148, November 18, 1980. To the

extent that small telephone companies

will be affected by these rules, the

Commission certified that these rules

would not have a significant effect on a

substantial number of ‘‘small entities.’’

Summary of Report and Order

In its Docket 91–35 Reconsideration

Order, the Commission ordered LECs to

offer, pursuant to interstate tariffs,

services that would block international

direct-dialed sequences (011+ and

10XXX–011+), but did not require LECs

to make that service available to

customers other than aggregators. See

Policies and Rules Concerning Operator

Service Access and Pay Telephone

Compensation, CC Docket No. 91–35,

Order on Reconsideration, 7 FCC Rcd

4355 (1992) (Docket 91–35

Reconsideration Order), 57 FR 34253,

August 4, 1992. The Commission also

required the LECs to offer two tariffed

screening services, originating line

screening (OLS) and billed number

screening (BNS). These services enable

operator service providers (OSPs) to

determine whether there are billing

restrictions on lines to which a caller

may seek to bill a call. The Commission,

however, did not expressly require that

those screening services be federally

tariffed. In its Order on Further

Reconsideration and Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in this docket, 8

FCC Rcd 2863 (1993) (Further

Reconsideration/Further NPRM), 58 FR

21435, April 21, 1993, the Commission

subsequently affirmed the requirement

that LECs offer OLS and BNS services

and tentatively found that Bell

Atlantic’s federally tariffed line

information data base (LIDB) service

fulfills its obligation to provide a BNS

service. The Further Reconsideration/

Further NPRM requested further

comment on three major issues: (1)

whether the Commission should require

the LECs to extend their international

blocking services to non-aggregator

business subscribers and to residential

subscribers; (2) whether the

Commission should affirm its tentative

conclusion that BNS and OLS services

should be tariffed at the federal level;

and (3) whether proposed standards

regarding availability to all customers,

unbundling, and rate levels should be

applied to OLS and BNS services

provided by the LECs. In light of the

rapid growth in the availability of, and

complaints about, international

information services since comments

were last filed in this proceeding, the

Commission’s Common Carrier Bureau

(Bureau) issued a Public Notice in

March 1995 requesting further comment

on whether international blocking for

residential consumers would be useful

in preventing losses to international

pay-per-call services, particularly dial-aporn services. Public Notice, Request for

Additional Comments on the Costs and

Benefits of International Blocking for

Residential Customers, CC Docket No.

91–35, 10 FCC Rcd 4549 (Com.Car.Bur.

1995) (Public Notice), 60 FR 16651,

March 31, 1995. Specifically, the Bureau

asked LECs to comment on the costs

they would incur to provide

international call blocking service to

residential customers and to show the

extent to which those costs could be

reduced by not providing blocking in

areas in which it would not be

technically feasible or economically

reasonable to do so.

In this Order, the Commission

required LECs to provide international

blocking services to business customers,

where technically feasible and

economically reasonable. The

Commission did not, however, require

LECs to provide such blocking for

residential consumers at this time. Also,

the Commission required LECs to tariff,

at the federal level, BNS and OLS

screening services that allow aggregators

to ensure that the proper screening

codes are associated with their

telephone lines. The OLS service must

deliver a code that discretely identifies

private payphones and such other codes

as are necessary to identify other

categories of aggregator locations. The

Commission emphasized again that it is

important for LECs to use uniform codes

for the OLS services that they provide.

The Commission required the LECs to

unbundle their OLS ‘‘confirmation

services,’’ unless they can show that

bundling would not place aggregators at

a competitive disadvantage or that it is

not technically feasible or would be

economically unreasonable to unbundle

OLS service. The Commission also

required that LECs unbundle the BNS

service they provide to aggregators

under federal tariff and make that

service available to both aggregators and

non-aggregators. Finally, the

Commission specified a rate structure

for OLS and BNS services provided to

aggregators.

Ordering Clauses

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to

authority contained in Sections 1, 4,

201–205, 218, 220, and 226 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201–205,

218, 220, and 226, that the policies and

requirements set forth herein ARE

adopted.

It is further ordered That this Order

will be effective June 27, 1996.

It is further ordered That, pursuant to

Section 203 of the Communications Act,

47 U.S.C. 203, each of the LECs SHALL

FILE revisions to their federal tariffs,

reflecting the requirements of this Order

to provide international blocking service

for non-aggregator business customers

and Billed Number Screening (BNS)

service within 60 days after the effective

date of this Order.

It is further ordered That, pursuant to

Section 203 of the Communications Act,

47 U.S.C. § 203, each of the LECs shall

file tariff revisions, reflecting the

requirements of this Order to federally

tariff Originating Line Screening (OLS)

service, no later than December 1, 1996.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13300 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Parts 37 and 38

[Docket No. 49658]

RIN 2105–AC13

Transportation for Individuals With

Disabilities; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Transportation

(DOT), Office of the Secretary.