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.
26468 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

SUMMARY: On May 21, 1996, the

Department of Transportation published

final rules amending its Americans with

Disabilities Act in several respects (61

FR 25409). This document corrects

certain editorial errors in that

document. The corrections do not affect

the substance of the amendments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant

General Counsel for Regulation and

Enforcement, Department of

Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW,

Room 10424, Washington, DC, 20590.

(202) 366–9306 (voice); (202) 755–7687

(TDD); or Richard Wong, Office of Chief

Counsel, Federal Transit

Administration, same street address,

Room 9316. (202) 366–4011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department is making editorial

corrections to its May 21, 1996, final

rule (61 FR 25409), amending 49 CFR

parts 37 and 38, which implement the

Americans with Disabilities Act for

transportation services. The

amendments concern such subjects as

advance reservations for paratransit

service, updates to paratransit plans,

requirements for independent private

schools, and other subjects.

Need for Correction

As published, the document contains

errors which may prove to be

misleading and are in need of

correction. First, In the preamble, the

last sentence of the first paragraph

under the heading ‘‘Visitor Eligibility,’’

beginning ‘‘The Department will further

amend * * *’’ (61 FR 25414, first

column) is incorrect, and should be

disregarded. The rule does not contain

such an amendment,

In four instances, the amendatory

language for certain provisions of the

rule left notice of proposed rulemaking

language (e.g., ‘‘proposes to amend’’

rather than ‘‘amends’’ or ‘‘revises’’) in

place. This document corrects these

errors. Finally, the amendment to

§ 37.135(c)(1) contained an potentially

misleading citation to §§ 37.137–139,

which could cause confusion about the

applicability of the requirement of

§§ 37.137(c) for continuing public

participation in transit authorities’

paratransit programs. The citation is

corrected to fix this problem.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on May

21, 1996, of the final regulations

amending 49 CFR Parts 37 and 38,

which were the subject of FR Doc. 96–

11935, is corrected as follows:

1. On page 25415, in the third

column, amendatory instruction 1,

relating to the authority citation for 49

CFR Part 37, is corrected to read as

follows:

1. The authority citation for 49 CFR

Part 37 continues to read as follows:

2. On page 25415, in the third

column, amendatory instruction 2,

relating to the authority citation for 49

CFR Part 38, is corrected to read as

follows:

2. The authority citation for 49 CFR

Part 38 is revised to read as follows:

3. On page 25415, in the third

column, amendatory instruction 3,

relating to the revision of § 37,27(b), is

corrected to read as follows:

3. In part 37, § 37.27(b) is revised to

read as follows:

4. On page 25416, in the second

column, in the amendment to

§ 37.135(c)(1), the citation in the final

sentence of the paragraph to ‘‘§§ 37.137–

37.139’’ is corrected to read ‘‘§§ 37.137

(a) and (b), 37.138 and 37.139’’.

5. On page 25416, in the third

column, amendatory instruction 12,

relating to Appendix D to Part 37, is

corrected to read as follows:

12. In Part 37, Appendix D, the

paragraph entitled ‘‘Section 37.13

Effective Date for Certain Vehicle Lift

Specifications’’ is amended by replacing

the words ‘‘new 30′′ by 48′′’’ with the

words ‘‘Part 38’’.

Rasheed J. Tahir,

Legal Assistant.

[FR Doc. 96–13252 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 501

Organization and Delegation of Powers

and Duties

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule delegates to

NHTSA’s Chief Counsel the authority to

issue authoritative interpretations of the

statutes administered by NHTSA and

the regulations issued by the agency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Womack, Senior Assistant Chief

Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

SW, Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590.

Mr. Womack’s telephone number is:

(202) 366–9511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final

rule revises the regulations on the

organization of and delegation of

powers and duties within the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA).

Since the creation of the agency,

NHTSA’s Chief Counsel has issued

written interpretations of the statutes

the agency administers and the

regulations it issues. These

interpretations, in the form of letters

responding to questions from the motor

vehicle industry and members of the

public, have been available to the public

in the agency’s technical reference

library in Washington. With the

development of new technology, the

agency is now able to make them

available through the Internet on the

World Wide Web. (The website is

www.nhtsa.dot.gov. At that site, select

‘‘NHTSA’s Library.’’ On the ‘‘NHTSA

Library’’ page, select ‘‘NHTSA’s

Interpretation Letters.’’)

In preparing to implement this new

service, NHTSA noted that although the

industry and the public have

consistently recognized the implicit

authority of the Chief Counsel to issue

such interpretations, there was no

formal delegation of that authority from

the Administrator to the Chief Counsel.

Therefore, in connection with the

broadening of public access to these

interpretations, and in order to

eliminate any possible

misunderstanding or doubt, NHTSA is

amending 49 CFR 501.8(d) to formally

delegate the authority to interpret

applicable statutes and regulations to

the Chief Counsel.

This action should be construed as a

confirmation of a preexisting implicit

delegation, and does not invalidate in

any way the interpretations that have

previously been issued by the Office of

Chief Counsel. However, interested

persons should recognize that all

interpretations are necessarily based on

the facts presented in individual cases

and the law that exists at the time the

interpretation is issued. Since the

agency’s statutes and regulations change

from year to year, past interpretations

may no longer be applicable under

current law.

As matters relating to agency

management, the amendments made by

this document are not covered by the

notice and comment or the effective

date requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act. These amendments

relate solely to changes in the scope of

the delegation of authority from the

NHTSA Administrator to the Chief

Counsel and have no substantive effect.

Notice and the opportunity for comment

are, therefore, not required, and these