Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31481

the amendment does not affect any

small entities. Only individual VA

beneficiaries could be directly affected.

The proposed rule is not subject to the

Office of Management and Budget

review pursuant to E.O. 12291.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number for programs affected by this

regulation are 64.201 and 64.202.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and

procedure, Cemeteries, Claims, Privacy,

Security.

Approved: June 11, 1996.

Jesse Brown,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 38 CFR part 1 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for part 1

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless

otherwise noted.

2. In § 1.621, paragraph (c) is

amended by removing the second

sentence; paragraph (d) and the

designation ‘‘[Reserved]’’ are removed;

paragraph (e) is redesignated as

paragraph (d); and paragraphs (a) and

(b)(2) are revised to read as follows:

§ 1.621 Disinterments from national

cemeteries.

(a) Interments of eligible decedents in

national cemeteries are considered

permanent and final. Disinterment will

be permitted only for cogent reasons

and with the prior written authorization

of the National Cemetery Area Office

Director or Cemetery Director

responsible for the cemetery involved.

Disinterment from a national cemetery

will be approved only when all living

immediate family members of the

decedent, and the person who initiated

the interment (whether or not he or she

is a member of the immediate family),

give their written consent, or when a

court order or State instrumentality of

competent jurisdiction directs the

disinterment. For purposes of this

section, ‘‘immediate family members’’

are defined as surviving spouse,

whether or not he or she is remarried,

all adult children of the decedent, the

appointed guardian(s) of minor

children, and the appointed guardian(s)

of the surviving spouse or of the adult

child(ren) of the decedent. If the

surviving spouse and all of the children

of the decedent are deceased, the

decedent’s parents will be considered

‘‘immediate family members.’’

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(2) Notarized statement(s) by all living

immediate family members of the

decedent, and the person who initiated

the interment (whether or not he or she

is a member of the immediate family),

that they consent to the proposed

disinterment.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–15711 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96–128; FCC 96–254]

Pay Telephone Reclassification and

Compensation Provisions of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Telecommunications Act

of 1996 directs the Commission to

promulgate new rules governing the

payphone industry. Section 276 of the

1996 Act directs the Commission,

among other things, to ensure that all

payphone owners are compensated for

calls originated on their payphones, and

to ‘‘discontinue * * * all intrastate and

interstate’’ subsidies for payphones

owned by incumbent local exchange

carriers (‘‘LECs’’). In this NPRM, the

Commission proposed rules that would

accomplish the following objectives set

forth by Congress in Section 276:

compensation for ‘‘each and every

completed intrastate and interstate call

using [a] payphone[;]’’ termination of all

subsidies for LEC payphones, including

‘‘access charge payphone service

elements[;]’’ prescription of

nonstructural safeguards for Bell

Operating Company (‘‘BOC’’)

payphones; promulgation of rules

permitting the BOCs to negotiate with

the payphone location provider about a

payphone’s presubscribed interLATA

carrier, unless the Commission finds

that such negotiations are ‘‘not in the

public interest;’’ promulgation of rules

permitting all payphone providers to

negotiate with the location provider

about a payphone’s presubscribed

intraLATA carrier; and establishment of

a class of public interest payphones to

be located ‘‘where there would

otherwise not be a payphone[.]’’ The

intended effect of this NPRM is to

propose a rule implementing Section

276 of the Communications Act of 1996.

DATES: Written comments by the public

on the Further NPRM of Proposed Rule

Making and the proposed and/or

modified information collections are

due June 27, 1996. Reply comments are

due on July 8, 1996. Written comments

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or

modified information collections on or

before August 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: In addition to filing

comments with the Secretary, a copy of

any comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to

dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain,

OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503

or via the Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Carowitz, Enforcement

Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202)

418–0960. For additional information

concerning the information collections

contained in this Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217, or via the

Internet at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in CC Docket No.

96–128, adopted on June 4, 1996 and

released June 6, 1996. The full text of

the Notice of Proposed Rule Making is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

duplicating contractor, International

Transcription Services, 2100 M Street,

N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C.

20037 (202) 857–3800. This Notice of

Proposed Rule Making contains

proposed or modified information

collections subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public

Law 104–13. It has been submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under Section 3507(d)

of the PRA. OMB, the general public,

and other Federal agencies are invited to

comment on the proposed or modified

information collections contained in

this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains eight proposed

or modified information collections.

The Commission, as part of its

continuing effort to reduce paperwork

burdens, invites the general public and

the Office of Management and Budget

(‘‘OMB’’) to comment on the
31482 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

information collections contained in

this NPRM, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as

other comments on this NPRM; OMB

notification of action is due August 19,

1996. Comments should address: (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

(1) OMB Control Number: None.

Title: Proposed Quarterly Report of

Interexchange Carriers (‘‘IXCs’’) Listing

the Number of Dial-Around Calls for

Which Compensation is Being Paid to

Payphone Owners.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, including small business.

Number of Respondents: 275.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1⁄2

hour.

Total Annual Burden: 550 hours.

Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: IXCs who are

responsible for paying per-call

compensation to payphone providers

must provide this report to the

payphone providers. Without provision

of this report, payphone providers

would be unable to ascertain the

compensation amount to be paid by the

IXCs.

(2) OMB Control Number: None.

Title: Proposed Annual Report of

Interexchange Carriers (‘‘IXCs’’) Listing

the Compensation Amount Paid to

Payphone Providers and the Number of

Payees.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, including small business.

Number of Respondents: 275.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 550 hours.

Estimated Cost Per Respondent:

$5,000.

Needs and Uses: IXCs who are

responsible for paying per-call

compensation to payphone providers

are required to provide annual reports to

the Common Carrier Bureau listing the

amount of compensation paid to

payphone providers and the number of

payees. Without provision of this report,

the Commission would be unable to

ensure that all the IXCs are paying their

respective compensation obligations. In

addition, IXCs must initiate an annual

independent verification of their percall tracking functions.

(3) OMB Control Number: None.

Title: Proposed Quarterly Report of

IntraLATA Carriers Listing Payphone

ANIs.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, including small business.

Number of Respondents: 400.

Estimated Time Per Response: 8 hours

for initial report, 2 hours for subsequent

reports.

Total Annual Burden: 5600 hours for

initial report, 3200 hours for subsequent

reports.

Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: IntraLATA carriers

are required to provide to interexchange

carriers (‘‘IXCs’’) a quarterly report

listing payphone ANIs. Without

provision of this report, resolution of

disputed ANIs would be very difficult

because IXCs would not be able to tell

which ANIs belong to payphones and

would not be able to ascertain which

dial-around calls were originated by

payphones for compensation purposes.

(4) OMB Control Number: None.

Title: Proposed One-Time Report of

Local Exchange Companies (‘‘LECs’’) of

Cost Accounting Studies.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, including small business.

Number of Respondents: 400.

Estimated Time Per Response: 50

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 20,000 hours.

Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: LECs are required to

provide to the Common Carrier Bureau,

on a one-time basis, a report containing

engineering studies, time and wage

studies, and other cost accounting

studies to identify the direct cost of

central office coin services. Without

provision of this report, the Commission

would be unable to ascertain whether

the LECs were charging their payphone

competitors unreasonably high prices

for central office coin services.

(5) OMB Control Number: None.

Title: Proposed Initial Report of Bell

Operating Companies (‘‘BOCs’’) of

Comparably Efficient Interconnection

Plans.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, including small business.

Number of Respondents: 7.

Estimated Time Per Response: 50

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 350 hours.

Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: BOCs are required to

provide to the Common Carrier Bureau

initial Comparably Efficient

Interconnection (‘‘CEI’’) plans

describing how they intend to comply

with the CEI equal access parameters.

Thereafter, they may include this

information in the CEI plans they

already file with the Commission.

Without the provision of these reports,

the Commission would be unable to

ascertain whether the BOCs were

providing competing payphone

providers with unbundled

nondiscriminatory access to their

network features and functionalities.

(6) OMB Control Number: None.

Title: Proposed Report of Bell

Operating Companies (‘‘BOCs’’) of

Modified Comparably Efficient

Interconnection Plans.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, including small business.

Number of Respondents: 7.

Estimated Time Per Response: 6

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 42 hours.

Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: BOCs are required to

provide to the Common Carrier Bureau

initial Comparably Efficient

Interconnection plans describing how

they intend to comply with the CEI

equal access parameters. Thereafter,

they may include this information in the

CEI plans they already file with the

Commission. Without the provision of

these reports, the Commission would be

unable to ascertain whether the BOCs

were providing competing payphone

providers with unbundled

nondiscriminatory access to their

network features and functionalities.

(7) OMB Control Number: None.

Title: Proposed Annual Filing of

Nondiscrimination Reports (on quality

of service, installation and maintenance)

by Bell Operating Companies (‘‘BOCs’’).

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, including small business.

Number of Respondents: 7.

Estimated Time Per Response: 50

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 350 hours.

Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: BOCs are required to

provide to the Common Carrier Bureau

nondiscrimination reports on an annual

basis. Without the provision of these

reports, the Commission would be

unable to ascertain whether the BOCs

were providing competing payphone

providers with equal access to all the

basic underlying network services that

are provided to its own payphones.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31483

(8) OMB Control Number: None.

Title: Proposed Public Disclosure of

Network Information by Bell Operating

Companies (‘‘BOCs’’).

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, including small business.

Number of Respondents: 7.

Estimated Time Per Response: 50

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 350 hours.

Report would be issued periodically,

when new network services are

developed or network changes made.

Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: BOCs are required to

publicly disclose changes in their

networks or new network services at

two different points in time. First,

disclosure would occur at the ‘‘make/

buy’’ point: when a BOC decides to

make for itself, or procure from an

unaffiliated entity, any product whose

design affects or relies on the network

interface. Second, a BOC would

publicly disclose technical information

about a new service 12 months before it

is introduced. If the BOC could

introduce the service within 12 months

of the make/buy point, it would make a

public disclosure at the make/buy point.

In no event, however, would the public

disclosure occur less than six months

before the introduction of the service.

Without provision of these reports, the

industry would be unable to ascertain

whether the BOCs were designing new

network services or changing network

technical specifications to the advantage

of their own payphones.

SUMMARY OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED

RULE MAKING

I. Background

1. Section 276(b)(1)(A) directs the

Commission to establish a

compensation mechanism to ensure

‘‘that all payphone service providers are

fairly compensated for each and every

completed intrastate and interstate call’’

from their payphones. Section

276(b)(1)(B) mandates that the

Commission ‘‘discontinue the intrastate

and interstate carrier access charge

payphone service elements and

payments * * * and all intrastate and

interstate subsidies from basic exchange

and exchange access revenues.’’ In

addition, Section 276(b)(1)(D) directs

the Commission to consider whether

BOCs should be permitted to be

involved with the location provider’s

selection of the payphone’s

presubscribed carrier. Together with the

other subsections of Section 276, these

three provisions help to establish

regulatory parity for all payphone

service providers (‘‘PSPs’’), whether

competitive payphone owners or

incumbent LECs (both independents

and BOCs).

II. Discussion

A. Compensation for Each and Every

Completed Intrastate and Interstate Call

Originated by Payphones

a. Scope of Payphone Calls Covered by

this Rulemaking

2. Currently, most calls originated on

payphones are within one of the

following categories: (1) coin calls; (2)

directory assistance calls; (3) operator

service (‘‘0+’’ and ‘‘0¥’’) calls; (4)

access code calls (using e.g., ‘‘10XXX’’

codes and ‘‘1–800’’ or ‘‘950’’ carrier

access numbers); and (5) subscriber 800

calls. Each of these categories can be

further subdivided between local,

intraLATA toll, intrastate interLATA,

interstate interLATA and international.

Each type of call is a potential source of

revenue for the payphone owner,

whether the revenue is derived from

coins deposited into the payphone,

through commission payments on

operator service calls, or from

compensation mandated by the FCC or

the states.

3. The 1996 Act requires the

Commission to ensure that PSPs are

fairly compensated for all calls

originated by their payphones. In light

of the multiple sources of revenue for

payphones, the Commission seeks

comment on what constitutes ‘‘fair’’

compensation and how we should

‘‘ensure’’ that each PSP receives it for

calls for originated by its payphones.

The Commission concludes that its

mandate under Section 276(b)(1)(A) is

to ensure that PSPs are ‘‘fairly

compensated’’ for ‘‘each and every

completed intrastate and interstate call’’

regardless of whether the PSP currently

receives compensation for the particular

call originated by its payphone. The

Commission tentatively concludes,

however, that it should use this

mandate to prescribe compensation only

when payphone providers are not

already ‘‘fairly compensated.’’

Currently, PPOs and non-BOC LECs

receive compensation, pursuant to

individual contracts, from the

payphone’s presubscribed IXC for all

‘‘0+’’ calls. IXCs have long competed for

this type of business. Therefore, the

Commission tentatively concludes that

it need not prescribe per-call

compensation for 0+ calls because

competition in this area ensures ‘‘fair’’

compensation for PSPs. It seeks

comment on these tentative

conclusions.

4. The 1996 Act does not expressly

state that compensation should extend

to international calls. The Commission

finds no evidence, however, of

congressional intent to leave these calls

uncompensated. Therefore, despite the

lack of reference to international calls in

Section 276(b)(1)(A), the Commission

tentatively concludes that it should

exercise its general jurisdiction under

Sections 4(i) and 201(b) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, to ensure that PSPs are

compensated for international as well as

interstate and intrastate calls originating

from their payphones in the United

States. The Commission seeks comment

on this tentative conclusion.

5. The rate for the most common type

of call, the local coin call, is set by state

commissions. Typically, the rate set for

local coin services provided by the

incumbent LECs also applies to the

PPOs. Section 276 of the Act requires

the Commission to ensure that the

payphone provider receives fair

compensation for each interstate and

intrastate call, including local coin sentpaid calls. Section 276 also expressly

preempts state regulations that are

inconsistent with the Commission’s

regulations. The Commission seeks

comment, however, on how it should

exercise its jurisdiction under Section

276. The Commission notes that it had

a range of options for ensuring fair

compensation for these calls, and it

sought comment on which option will

ensure fair compensation for PSPs with

respect to local coin sent-paid calls.

6. More specifically, one option

would be to set a nationwide local coin

rate for all calls originated by

payphones. The Commission seeks

comment on whether the Commission

should take such action and request that

commenters identify the specific public

interest benefits they believe would

result from a nationwide rate, why local

rates are inadequate to ensure fair

compensation, the impacts of variations

among the states in the local coin sentpaid rate on PSPs and the public, and

whether those impacts are

predominantly local, statewide, regional

or national. Another option would be

for the Commission to prescribe specific

national guidelines that states would

use to establish a local rate that would

ensure that all PSPs are fairly

compensated. The Commission seeks

comment on whether the Commission

should take such action and request that

commenters identify specific public

interest benefits they believe would

result from the Commission prescribing

such guidelines, what factors such

guidelines should consider, how the

guidelines would ensure fair

compensation for local coin calls, the

impacts of variations among the states
31484 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

in local coin rates, and whether those

impacts are predominantly local,

statewide, regional or national.

7. A third option for ensuring fair

compensation for PSPs would be for the

states, in the first instance, to continue

to set the coin rates for local payphone

calls according to factors within their

discretion. The Commission has long

recognized the interest of the states in

setting end-user rates for local calls,

including rates for 411 calls. Indeed, as

discussed above, the states have long

had a traditional and primary role in

regulating payphones. However,

because Section 276 of the 1996 Act

requires the Commission to ensure that

PSPs are fairly compensated for ‘‘each

and every completed intrastate and

interstate call,’’ the Commission seeks

comment on what further procedures,

such as a complaint or petition process,

it should establish, should it ultimately

determine to defer to the states in

setting payphone rates. The Commission

also seeks comment on what standards

it could use to adjudicate any

complaints or petitions that challenge a

particular rate. It further ask whether

the states’ setting of the rates for local

coin calls subject to complaint or

petition would be consistent with

Section 276’s mandate that the

Commission ensure fair compensation

for ‘‘each and every completed intrastate

and interstate call.’’ The Commission

sought comment on whether the

Commission should take such action

and request that commenters identify

specific public interest benefits they

believe would result from having coin

rates for local payphone calls set by the

states.

b. Entities Required To Pay

Compensation

8. Because the 1996 Act directs the

Commission to ensure that all PSPs are

compensated, with limited exception,

for ‘‘each and every intrastate and

interstate call’’ using their payphones,

the Commission also addresses who

pays that compensation. The possible

payors include: the caller using the

payphone; the carrier over whose

network the call is placed; or, in the

case of subscriber 800 calls, the entity

being called (who may or may not

directly pass all the charges on to the

caller using the payphone). Industry

participants have made two

compensation proposals that might

satisfy the per-call compensation

requirement.

9. The first proposal builds on the

per-call compensation mechanism

proposed for interstate access code calls

in CC Docket No. 91–35. If this ‘‘carrierpays’’ mechanism were extended to all

dial-around calls, the IXC who receives

such a call from a payphone would be

required to pay a per-call charge to the

provider of the payphone. Each IXC

would decide independently how to

recover this cost.

10. Another approach would be to

rely on a ‘‘set use fee.’’ The ‘‘set use fee’’

is a fee that the IXC would bill and

collect from the end user. The fee would

then be remitted to the PSP. In the case

of the subscriber 800 and other toll-free

number calls, the set use fee could be

collected from the subscriber. For access

code calls and operator-assisted calls,

the set use fee would be collected from

the end user that is billed for the call.

11. The Commission tentatively

concludes that, for non-coin payphone

calls, either a ‘‘carrier-pays’’ system or

a ‘‘set use fee’’ system where the end

user pays would satisfy the

requirements of the 1996 Act. As a

general principle, however, the

Commission tends to favor an approach

that minimizes transaction costs on the

caller and on the industry. The

Commission finds that the carrier-pays

mechanism is preferable because it

would result in less transaction costs

because the IXC could aggregate its

payments to payphone providers. Under

a set-use fee, these payments would be

spread among a vast number of

payphone callers through their

individual telephone bills. Therefore,

the Commission tentatively concludes

that it should adopt a ‘‘carrier-pays’’

compensation mechanism that builds on

existing procedures. It seeks comment

on these tentative conclusions.

c. Ability of Carriers To Track Calls

From Payphones

12. Based on prior FCC proceedings,

the Commission tentatively concludes

that tracking mechanisms and

surrogates exist, or might readily be

made available, to support the complete

per-call compensation plan mandated

by Section 276(b)(1)(A). It seeks

comment on what tracking options are

currently, or may soon be, available.

The Commission seeks further comment

on the ability of existing IXC-based

tracking mechanisms to accommodate

all payphone providers and IXCs. In the

event that there is no standard

technology or mechanism available for

tracking, the Commission seeks

comment on alternative surrogate

methodologies that could be devised

and by whom. Finally, it seeks comment

on which party or parties, whether IXCs,

PSPs, or intraLATA carriers, should be

required to develop and maintain the

tracking or surrogate methodologies.

d. Administration of Per-Call

Compensation

13. The Commission tentatively

concludes that the direct-billing

arrangement established in previous

Commission orders should be

maintained with the simple addition of

requiring IXCs, and the intrastate

interexchange operations of LECs to

send back to each PSP a statement

indicating the number of toll-free and

access code calls that each carrier has

received from each of that PSP’s

payphones. The Commission proposes

to continue to leave the details of the

billing arrangements for the parties to

determine. All parties, whether carriers

or PSPs, would be free to retain the

services of one or more clearinghouses

to assist them with billing and

collection and/or payment of the

compensation. The Commission would

require, however, that the carrier

responsible for paying compensation

file each year a brief report with the

Common Carrier Bureau listing the total

amount of compensation paid, pursuant

to the rules adopted in this proceeding,

to PSPs for intrastate, interstate, and

international calls; the number of

compensable calls received by the

carrier; and the number of payees.

e. Per-Call Compensation Amount

14. The Commission previously

examined various compensation

methods in the Second Report and

Order. The Commission notes that the

theory of compensation and price

surrogates that the Commission has

historically relied upon in its

determination of the ‘‘range of

reasonable compensation rates’’

provides some guidance for our analysis

of how to ensure that PSPs are ‘‘fairly

compensated’’ and what should be the

appropriate per-call compensation

amount for all calls within the scope of

this rulemaking. As before, while the

Commission noted that it was

confronted in the proceeding by the lack

of reliable PPO cost data, it tentatively

concludes that PSPs should be

compensated for their costs in

originating the types of calls for which

it has tentatively concludes that

compensation is appropriate. It

tentatively concludes further that these

costs should be measured by

appropriate cost-based surrogates. It

seeks comment on these tentative

conclusions. The Commission also

questions whether, to ensure that PSPs

receive fair compensation, it should

prescribe different per-call

compensation amounts for the different

types of calls originated by payphones.

It seeks further comment on how
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31485

compensation levels should be

permitted to change in the future, and

whether some cost index or price cap

system would be appropriate to ensure

that compensation levels reflect

expected changes in unit costs over

time. The Commission also seeks

comment on whether it should provide

PPOs some measure of interim

compensation, to be paid until the

effective date of the final rules we adopt

in this proceeding, for the growing

volume of dial-around calls originated

from their payphones.

B. Reclassification of Incumbent LECOwned Payphones

a. Classification of LEC Payphones as

CPE

15. To effectuate the Act’s mandate

that access charge payphone service

elements and payphone subsidies be

discontinued, the Commission

tentatively concludes that it should treat

incumbent LEC payphones as

unregulated, detariffed CPE. It

tentatively concludes further that

incumbent LECs should be required to

provide to PSPs, on a nondiscriminatory

tariffed basis, all functionalities used in

a LEC’s delivery of payphone services.

16. The option of using central office

coin services, such as coin recognition,

answer detection, and other related

services, allows incumbent LECs to use

the less expensive ‘‘dumb’’ pay

telephones, which gives incumbent

LECs a cost advantage over their

competitors. The Commission

tentatively concludes that requiring that

central office coin services be made

available to PPOs eliminates this cost

advantage and will increase competition

in the payphone industry. To unbundle

payphones from their underlying

transmission, the Commission

tentatively concludes that incumbent

LECs, whether or not they themselves

provide payphone service, must offer

individual central office coin

transmission services to PSPs under a

nondiscriminatory, public, tariffed

offering. It seeks comment on this

tentative conclusion and on which

central office coin services must be

made available by incumbent LECs to

the PSPs to achieve this goal. In the

interest of clarity, it seeks comment on

both the type of services and the

technological requirements necessary to

allow PPOs to use payphones that are

equivalent to those payphones currently

used by LECs. The Commission also

tentatively concludes that Section

68.2(a)(1) of the FCC’s regulations

should be amended to facilitate

registration of both instrument

implemented and central-officeimplemented payphones. It seeks

comment on this tentative conclusion.

b. Transfer of Payphone Equipment to

Unregulated Status

17. If the Commission concludes that

it will treat payphones as detariffed

CPE, the incumbent LECs would have to

transfer their payphones and related

equipment from regulated to

unregulated activities. FCC rules

provide that, if reallocations of

telecommunications plant (i.e., central

office equipment and outside plant)

from regulated to nonregulated

operations are required, such plant will

be transferred at undepreciated baseline

cost plus an interest charge based on the

authorized interstate rate of return to

reflect the time value of money. The

Commission seeks comment on the

specific assets to be transferred. It

tentatively concludes that the assets to

be transferred should be defined

generally in terms of CPE deregulation.

Thus, the assets to be transferred may

include all facilities related to payphone

service, including associated taxes and

depreciation, but likely would not

include the loops connecting the

payphones to the network, or the central

office ‘‘coin-service’’ or operator service

facilities supporting incumbent LEC

payphones. Including these network

support facilities may be inappropriate

because it would allow incumbent LECs

to continue providing a different form of

interconnection to their payphones than

is available to PSPs. The Commission

also tentatively concludes that a phasein period for a transfer of payphonerelated assets is not necessary, because

payphone terminal equipment consists

of less than one percent of total plant

investment for the entire LEC industry.

The Commission seeks comment on our

tentative conclusions and the general

approach to asset transfers outlined

here.

c. Termination of Access Charge

Compensation and Other Subsidies

18. Incumbent LECs today generally

recover payphone costs allocated to the

interstate jurisdiction through the perminute carrier common line (‘‘CCL’’)

charge they assess on IXCs and other

interstate access customers for

originating and terminating interstate

calls. The incumbent LEC assesses the

PPO a subscriber line charge (‘‘SLC’’) (at

the multi-line business rate) to recover

the payphone common line costs

associated with that phone. In the case

of competitive payphones, a PPO

recovers its payphone costs out of the

revenue it receives from end users,

premises owners, and OSPs to whom its

payphones are presubscribed.

19. The 1996 Act mandates that the

Commission ‘‘discontinue the intrastate

and interstate carrier access charge

payphone service elements and

payments * * * and all intrastate and

interstate subsidies from basic exchange

and exchange access revenues[.]’’

Accordingly, the Commission must

adopt rules that provide for the removal

from regulated intrastate and interstate

rate structures of all charges that recover

the costs of payphones (i.e., the costs of

payphone sets, not including the costs

of the lines connecting those sets to the

public switched network, which, like

the lines connecting competitive

payphones to the network, will continue

to be treated as regulated). It tentatively

concludes that incumbent LECs must

reduce their interstate CCL charges by

an amount equal to the interstate

allocation of payphone costs currently

recovered through those charges. LECs

subject to the price cap rules would

treat this as an exogenous cost change

to the Common Line basket pursuant to

Section 61.44(c) of our rules. The

Commission requests incumbent LECs

to identify in their comments all

accounts that contain costs attributable

to their payphone operations. The

Commission also requests comment on

whether specific cost pools and

allocators should be used to capture the

nonregulated investment and expenses

associated with their payphone

operations. It seeks further comment on

whether a transition period is necessary

to move from subsidized compensation

to per-call compensation for LEC

payphones, and how that transition

would proceed.

20. The Commission also proposes,

pursuant to the mandate of Section

276(b)(1)(B), to require incumbent LECs

to remove from their intrastate rates any

charges that recover the costs of

payphones. The Commission solicits

comment on whether it should set a

deadline and a specific mechanism for

elimination of any intrastate subsidies

as well, or whether it would be both

consistent with the statute as well as

preferable from a policy perspective to

permit the states to formulate their own

mechanisms for achieving this result

within a specific time frame.

21. In the telephone network,

payphones, as well as all other

telephones, are connected to the local

switch by means of a subscriber line.

The costs of the subscriber line that are

allocated to the interstate jurisdiction

are recovered through two separate

charges: a flat-rate SLC assessed upon

the end user customer who subscribes to

local service; and a per-minute CCL

charge that recovers the balance of the

interstate subscriber line costs not
31486 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

recovered through the SLC. LEC

payphone costs are also included in the

CCL charge. The CCL charge, however,

applies to interstate switched access

service that is unrelated to payphone

service costs. While PPOs are required

to pay the SLC for the loop used by each

of their payphones, LECs have not been

required to pay this charge because the

subscriber lines connected to LEC

payphones have been recovered entirely

through the CCL charge. The

Commission tentatively concludes that,

to avoid discrimination among

payphone providers, the SLC should

apply to subscriber lines that terminate

at both LEC and competitive payphones.

It tentatively concludes that the removal

of payphone costs from the CCL and the

payment or imputation of a SLC to the

subscriber line that terminates at a LEC

nonregulated payphone would result in

the recovery of LEC payphone costs on

a more cost-causative basis. The

Commission seeks comment on these

tentative conclusions and, more

generally, on how removing LEC

payphones from the CCL charge would

affect the SLC.

22. The incumbent LECs’ multi-line

business SLC is currently subject to a

$6.00 per month cap. Those LECs with

interstate subscriber line costs that

exceed this amount recover a portion of

the interstate costs of subscriber lines

through the CCL charge. The issue of the

appropriate interstate SLC for the future

has been referred to a Federal-State Joint

Board. To the extent that LECs charge or

impute to their own payphone

operations only the multi-line business

SLC, which may be less than the full

interstate cost of the subscriber lines

connecting their payphones to the

network, and recover the balance of the

cost of these lines through the CCL

charge, they may, in effect, be

subsidizing their payphones with access

charge revenues, in violation of Section

276. The Commission seeks comment

on whether LECs in those circumstances

should charge or impute to their own

payphone operations, as well as to

PPOs, an additional monthly charge

representing the difference between the

SLC cap and the full interstate cost of

these subscriber lines. It also seeks

comment on whether comparable

changes should be made to incumbent

LECs’ intrastate rates.

d. Deregulation of AT&T Payphones

23. In the Interstate, Interexchange

Marketplace proceeding, the

Commission notes that it would

consider in the instant proceeding ‘‘the

issue of bundling pay telephone

equipment with the underlying

transmission capacity.’’ The

Commission tentatively concludes that

other IXC bundling issues should be

treated under the same rules we have

proposed in the Interstate,

Interexchange Marketplace proceeding.

Commenters who disagree with this

tentative conclusion, however, are

invited to comment in the proceeding.

24. Like LEC payphones, AT&T

payphones are classified as network

equipment and, therefore, may receive

subsidies. The Commission tentatively

concludes that payphones provided by

AT&T should be classified as CPE.

While the 1996 Act does not expressly

address AT&T payphones, Section 276

directs the Commission to adopt

regulations that will ‘‘promote

competition among payphone service

providers and promote the widespread

deployment of payphone services to the

benefit of the general public[.]’’

Discontinuing possible subsidies for

AT&T payphones would be congruent

with the 1996 Act’s requirement that the

Commission discontinue subsidies for

other payphones (i.e., those owned by

incumbent LECs) and would provide for

symmetrical regulation of the payphone

industry. There are other reasons why

this proposed action is in harmony with

the other rules the Commission has

proposed in its proceeding. First, since

Tonka, AT&T payphones have been

treated the same as BOC payphones.

Once LEC telephones, including those

provided by the BOCs, are declared to

be CPE, the basis for treating AT&T

payphones as network equipment no

longer exists. Second, the Commission

believes that deregulating AT&T

payphones is in line with its general

policy to deregulate non-dominant

carriers. It seeks comment on this

tentative conclusion.

C. Nonstructural Safeguards for BOC

Provision of Payphone Service

25. The Computer III nonstructural

safeguards currently apply to a BOC’s

provision of payphone service if

enhanced services are provided through

the payphone. Under the Computer III

framework, BOCs are permitted to

provide enhanced services on an

integrated basis subject to

nondiscrimination safeguards. The

safeguards the Commission adopted in

Computer III include: (1)

nondiscriminatory access to network

features and functionalities; (2)

restrictions on the use of Customer

Proprietary Network Information

(‘‘CPNI’’); (3) network information

disclosure rules; (4) nondiscrimination

in the provision, installation, and

maintenance of services as well as

nondiscrimination reporting

requirements; and (5) cost accounting

safeguards. The Commission tentatively

concludes that all Computer III

nonstructural safeguards must be

applied to meet our obligation under the

1996 Act. It seeks comment on this

tentative conclusion. We also seek

comment on whether there are other

nonstructural safeguards that, while not

explicitly specified in the Computer III,

should be applied to BOC payphones.

26. Currently, the Commission

regulates BOC provision of enhanced

services through Comparably Efficient

Interconnection (‘‘CEI’’) and Open

Network Architecture (‘‘ONA’’)

requirements that require unbundled

nondiscriminatory access to BOC

network features and functionalities.

Pursuant to these requirements, BOCs

must file a service-specific CEI plan

before offering any enhanced service on

an integrated basis. A BOC must

demonstrate in its CEI plan how it

would provide competing enhanced

service providers (ESPs) with ‘‘equal

access’’ to all basic underlying network

services the BOC used to provide its

own enhanced services. Subsequently,

the Commission required BOCs to

develop and implement ONA plans

detailing more fundamental unbundling

of their basic network services. ONA

requires further unbundling of network

elements than under CEI because it is

not limited to those elements associated

with specific BOC enhanced services. In

1993, the Common Carrier Bureau lifted

structural separation requirements after

each BOC demonstrated that its ONA

plan complied with the BOC Safeguards

Order. Following the California III court

decision, the Commission has continued

to require BOCs to file CEI plans for

each individual enhanced service it

offers in addition to fulfilling the access

requirements of its ONA plan.

b. BOC CEI Plans

27. To ensure BOC compliance with

the Computer III and ONA

requirements, we propose to require that

each BOC file, within 90 days of the

effective date of the order in this

proceeding, an initial CEI plan

describing how it intends to comply

with the CEI equal access parameters

and nonstructural safeguards for the

provision of payphone services.

Thereafter, the BOCs may integrate the

filing of information on payphone

services unbundling and nonstructural

safeguards with their ongoing ONA

filings. Generally, in a CEI plan, a BOC

must describe how it intends to comply

with the CEI ‘‘equal access’’ parameters

for the specific payphone service it

intends to offer. The CEI equal access

parameters include: interface

functionality; unbundling of basic
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31487

services; resale; technical

characteristics; installation,

maintenance, and repair; end user

access; CEI availability; minimization of

transport costs; and availability to all

interested customers or enhanced

service providers. Because the 1996 Act

requires that we apply safeguards that

are equal to those set forth in Computer

III ‘‘at a minimum,’’ the Commission

seeks comment on any other parameters

or requirements for BOC payphone

service that, while not listed in this

NPRM, are consistent with the intent of

the 1996 Act.

D. Ability of BOCs To Negotiate With

Location Providers on the Presubscribed

Interlata Carrier

28. While the location provider

selects the OSP for BOC and GTE

payphones, all other payphone

providers are able to select the OSP

serving their payphones. As discussed

above, payphone providers, both PPOs

and independent LECs, compete in the

market for payphone services by

offering the location provider a

commission on coin and 0+ traffic

originating from the payphones located

on the location provider’s premises. In

turn, payphone providers earn revenue

by reselling local and 1+ long distance

service and by contracting for 0+ traffic

with OSPs that pay commissions on 0+

traffic. The legislation directs the

Commission to provide similar rights to

BOCs, unless the Commission

determines that it is not in the public

interest.

29. The Commission seeks comment

on the extent to which extending to the

BOCs the same rights that all other

payphone providers have to select and

contract with the interLATA carriers

that carry interLATA traffic from their

payphones would be ‘‘not in the public

interest.’’ The Commission questions

whether these rights will benefit the

general public by increasing

competition, available services, and

overall efficiency. It also asks whether

carrier-selection rights will help to

foster increased competition and market

parity that will ‘‘promote the

widespread deployment of payphone

services to the benefit of the general

public.’’ Parties commenting on this

issue should also address how any

Commission action with respect to a

BOC’s right to select and contract with

interLATA carriers would be consistent

with the other goals enunciated in

Section 276, such as promoting

regulatory parity between BOCs and

independent payphone providers, and

that the location provider has the

ultimate decision-making authority in

determining interLATA services in

connection with the choice of payphone

providers.

30. The Commission seeks comment

on whether the ability to select the

interLATA carrier serving their

payphones is likely to permit the BOCs

to behave anticompetitively in the

payphone market in the absence of

safeguards to prevent cost

misallocations and discrimination. In

addition, the Commission seeks

comment on whether the structural and

accounting safeguards mandated under

Sections 271 and 272 of the 1996 Act,

and any Commission rules

implementing these safeguards, are

sufficient to prevent anticompetitive

abuses. If not, the Commission seeks

comment on whether the Commission

should adopt rules to prevent BOCs

from giving more favorable interLATA

rates to their own payphone operations

than to their payphone competitors.

Parties are asked to specify what

safeguards would be necessary to

prevent potential anticompetitive

behavior by the BOCs in this regard. The

Commission also seeks comment on to

what extent a BOC not authorized to

provide in-region interLATA service

under Section 271 of the 1996 Act

should be allowed to participate in the

selection of the interLATA carrier,

especially if the BOC has a nonattributable interest in the interLATA

carrier, such as an option to purchase or

an agreement to merge.

E. Ability of Payphone Service Providers

To Negotiate With Location Providers on

the Presubscribed Intralata Carrier

31. Currently, in some states,

competitive payphones are required to

route intraLATA 0+ and 0¥ calls, and

sometimes other intraLATA calls, to the

incumbent LEC. In contrast, Section

276(b)(1)(E) requires the Commission to

prescribe regulations to allow PSPs to

negotiate with the location provider on

the selecting and contracting with the

intraLATA carrier serving the

payphone. In accordance with this

requirement, the Commission

tentatively concludes that all PSPs,

whether LECs or PPOs, should be given

this right to negotiate with location

providers concerning the intraLATA

carrier. The Commission seeks comment

on these tentative conclusions.

F. Establishment of Public Interest

Payphones

32. Because Section 276(b)(2) directs

the Commission to ‘‘determine whether

public interest payphones * * * should

be maintained,’’ the Commission seeks

comment on whether it would be in the

public interest to maintain payphones

provided in the interest of public health,

safety, and welfare, in locations where

there would otherwise not be a

payphone.’’

33. If the Commission determines that

public interest payphones should be

maintained, then Section 276(b)(2) gives

the Commission statutory authority to

determine further how public interest

payphones should be regulated. As with

our jurisdiction over local call rates, the

Commission seeks comment on a range

of options for maintaining public

interest payphones. One option would

be for the Commission to prescribe

federal regulations for the maintenance

of these payphones. It seeks comment

on whether and how this approach

would serve the public interest, and on

whether Section 276 requires the

Commission to assume this

responsibility.

34. A second option would be for the

Commission to establish national

guidelines for public interest

payphones. It seeks comment on

whether there are any state initiatives or

programs concerning public interest

payphones that the Commission could

use as a model for national guidelines.

Commenters supporting national

guidelines should specify what factors

the guidelines should consider and how

the guidelines should be applied on a

nationwide basis.

35. In the event that the Commission

establishes national guidelines for

public interest payphones, it seeks

comment on what is to be considered a

‘‘public interest payphone.’’ The Joint

Explanatory Statement for Section 276

clarifies that the term ‘‘public interest

payphones’’ refers to payphones where

payphone service would not otherwise

be available as a result of the operation

of the market. ‘‘Thus, the term does not

apply to a payphone located near other

payphones, or to a payphone that, even

though unprofitable by itself, is

provided for a location provider with

whom the payphone provider has a

contract.’’ The Commission seeks

comment on whether a ‘‘public interest

payphone’’ should be defined as a

payphone: (1) that operates at a

financial loss, but also fulfills some

public policy objective, such as

emergency access; and (2) even though

unprofitable by itself, is not provided

for a location provider with whom the

PSP has a contract. Under this

definition, many payphones that fulfill

important public policy objectives

would not be included because they

would be paid for, in the form of lower

commission payments, by the entity that

is requesting that a payphone be placed

in a particular location to fulfill a public

policy objective. This proposed

definition would not necessarily
31488 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

decrease the number of payphones in

existence fulfilling public policy

objectives, but would require the

entities that most directly benefit from

these low profitability payphones to

assume the cost of their availability. The

Commission seeks comment generally

on this possible definition. Parties may

specify whether the definition should be

narrower, broader, or more specific.

36. A third option for maintaining

public interest payphones would be to

defer to the states to determine,

pursuant to their own statutes and

regulations, which payphones should be

treated as ‘‘public interest payphones.’’

This approach would treat the provision

of ‘‘public interest payphones’’ as

primarily a matter of state concern. The

Commission seeks comment on whether

it would be consistent with the statute

and better serve the public interest to

allow the states to develop their own

guidelines regarding which payphones

are ‘‘public interest payphones.’’

37. With regard to a funding

mechanism to support public interest

payphones ‘‘fairly and equitably,’’ the

Commission seeks comment on whether

such a mechanism should be handled in

conjunction with how public interest

payphones are maintained, whether

through federal regulations, federal

guidelines for the states, or by the states

themselves. In the alternative, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

it would it serve the public interest for

the Commission and the states to

administer different portions of a public

interest payphone program.

Commenters that support a

Commission-mandated funding

mechanism should detail how the

mechanism would function, including

who would be eligible to receive

funding, who would be responsible for

paying into the fund, and who would

administer the funding mechanism.

G. Other Issues

1. Dialing Parity

38. Section 251(b)(3) states that all

LECs have the duty to ‘‘provide dialing

parity to competing providers of

telephone exchange service and

telephone toll service.’’ The

Commission tentatively concludes that

the benefits of dialing parity

requirements that it adopts pursuant to

Section 251(b)(3) of the Act should

extend to all payphone location

providers. It seeks comment on this

tentative conclusion and on other

methods for achieving dialing parity for

payphone location providers, and users,

of payphones that are consistent with

the definition of dialing parity under

Section 3(15) of the 1934 Act, as

amended. As a related matter, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

the Commission should extend the type

of intraLATA carrier unblocking

requirements established in TOCSIA to

all local and long distance calls.

2. Letterless Keypads

39. At least two distributors of

payphone equipment have been

promoting letterless keypads. Such

keypads defeat callers’ attempts to reach

their OSP of choice through a ‘‘vanity’’

access number, such as MCI’s ‘‘1–800–

COLLECT’’ or AT&T’s ‘‘1–800–CALL–

ATT’’ and ‘‘10ATT,’’ that can be easily

remembered by callers. Standard

payphone keypads contain certain

letters of the alphabet that correspond to

each digit (e.g., A, B, and C correspond

to the digit ‘‘2’’). A ‘‘letterless’’ keypad

does not include any letters associated

with the requisite digits. The

Commission expressed concern that use

of letterless keypads may frustrate the

intent of Congress, as expressed in

TOCSIA, to permit callers to reach the

OSP of their choice from payphones. In

addition, the Commission is concerned

that these keypads ultimately frustrates

congressional intent, as expressed in the

1996 Act, ‘‘to promote competition

among payphone service providers and

promote the widespread deployment of

payphone services to the benefit of the

general public[.]’’

40. To promote consumer access to

OSPs, TOCSIA required the unblocking

of 800 and 950 access numbers at

aggregator locations and directed the

Commission to mandate the unblocking

of 10XXX access codes and/or the

establishment of 800/950 access

numbers by each OSP. In the succeeding

years, some OSPs have chosen to use

‘‘vanity’’ dialing sequences for access

numbers. While the Commission has

previously found that it does not have

conclusive data showing a net change in

the average number of access code calls

(both 10XXX and 800/950 access calls)

originated by each competitive

payphone each month, payphone

industry representatives have argued

that use of ‘‘vanity’’ dialing sequences

by payphone users has grown since

their introduction.

41. The Commission staff has

reviewed advertisements for letterless

keypads that specifically refer to a ‘‘bypass keypad’’ that ‘‘prevents dial around

[calls].’’ The Commission tentatively

concludes that the use of letterless

keypads violates both TOCSIA and the

1996 Act by preventing callers from

accessing their OSP of choice. It seeks

comment on how the Commission

should take action to prohibit use of

these ‘‘by-pass’’ letterless keypads to

restrict the availability of ‘‘vanity’’

access numbers.

3. Other Pending Payphone Proceedings

42. Several proceedings pending

before the Commission concern the

rules governing the payphone industry.

The Commission tentatively concludes

that it would further the public interest

to consolidate and address those

proceedings within this rulemaking.

The pending proceedings are as follows:

(1) Petition of the Public Telephone

Council to Treat BOC Payphones as

CPE, DA 88–2055; (2) Policies and Rules

Concerning Operator Service Access

and Pay Telephone Compensation, CC

Docket. No. 91–35 (payphone

compensation issues only); (3) Petition

of Oncor Communications, Inc.

Requesting Compensation for

Competitive Payphone Premises Owners

and Presubscribed Operator Services

Providers, DA 95–1921; and (4)

Amendment of Section 69.2 (m) and (ee)

of the Commission’s Rules to Include

Independent Public Payphones Within

the ‘‘Public Telephone’’ Exemption from

End User Common Line Access Charges,

RM 8723. Each of these proceedings

addresses issues covered by Section 276

of the Act. We seek comment on the

implications of our tentative conclusion.

Specifically, the Commission seeks

comment on which proceedings on the

list commenters believe may be resolved

here, and reasons for such opinions, and

which proceedings should continue

separately from this rulemaking, and the

reasons for those opinions. The

Commission also concludes in the

NPRM that the Commission need not

address the Florida Payphone remand in

a separate proceeding because the rules

adopted in the proceeding will address

the remand by ensuring that PSPs are

compensated, pursuant to the 1996 Act,

for all intrastate and interstate calls,

including subscriber 800 calls.

III. Comments and Ex Parte

Presentations

43. All interested may file comments

on the issues set forth in this NPRM, on

which comment is specifically sought,

by June 27, 1996, and reply comments

by July 8, 1996. 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, which involves issues

concerning the Commission’s expedited

implementation of the 1996 Act,

participants must file an original, ten

copies, and the electronic version on

disk of all comments and reply

comments. Comments and reply

comments should be sent to the Office

of the Secretary, Federal
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31489

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. If participants

want each Commissioner to have a

personal copy of their comments, an

original plus fourteen copies must be

filed. In addition, participants should

submit two additional copies directly to

the Common Carrier Bureau,

Enforcement Division, Room 6008, 2025

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

The petition, 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, DC 20554.

Copies of the petition and any

subsequently filed documents in this

matter may be obtained from ITS, Inc.,

2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857–3800.

44. To facilitate review of comments

and replies, both by parties and by

Commission staff, the Commission

requires that comments be no longer

than seventy-five (75) pages and replies

be no longer than thirty-five (35) pages,

including exhibits, appendices, and

affidavits of expert witnesses. Empirical

economic studies and copies of relevant

state orders will not be counted against

these page limits. The page limits will

not be waived and will be strictly

enforced. Comments and replies must

include a short and concise summary of

the substantive arguments raised in the

pleading. Comments and replies must

also comply with Section 1.49 and all

other applicable sections of the

Commission’s rules. The Commission

also directs all interested parties to

include the name of the filing party and

the date of the filing on each page of

their comments and replies. Comments

and replies also must clearly identify

the specific portion of this NPRM to

which a particular comment or set of

comments is responsive. If a portion of

a party’s comments does not fall under

a particular topic listed in the outline of

this NPRM, such comments must be

included in a clearly labelled section at

the beginning or end of the filing.

Parties may not file more than a total of

ten (10) pages of ex parte submissions,

excluding cover letters. This 10 page

limit does not include: (1) written ex

parte filings made solely to disclose an

oral ex parte contact; (2) written

material submitted at the time of an oral

presentation to Commission staff that

provides a brief outline of the

presentation; or (3) written material

filed in response to direct requests from

Commission staff. Ex parte filings in

excess of this limit will not be

considered as part of the record in this

proceeding.

45. Parties are invited to submit, in

conjunction with their comments or

replies, proposed text for rules that the

Commission could adopt in this

proceeding. Specific rule proposals

should be filed as an appendix to a

party’s comments or reply, and will not

be counted against the page limits set

forth in the preceding paragraph. Such

appendices may include only proposed

text for rules that would implement

proposals set forth in the parties’

comments and replies in this

proceeding, and may not include any

comments or arguments.

46. 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.

IV. Conclusion

V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

47. As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

Section 601 et seq. (1981), the

Commission has prepared a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis of the expected

impact on small entities resulting from

the policies and proposals set forth in

the NPRM. The full analysis is

contained within the NPRM. The

Secretary shall send a copy of the NPRM

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration in

accordance with Section 603(a) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

VI. Ordering Clauses

48. Accordingly, it is further ordered,

pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i)–4(j), 201–

205, 226, and 276 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

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

201–205, 226, and 276 that a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking is ADOPTED.

49. It is furhter ordered that the Chief

of the Common Carrier Bureau is

delegated authority to require the

submission of additional information,

make further inquiries, and modify the

dates and procedures, if necessary, to

provide for a fuller record and a more

efficient proceeding.

50. It is further ordered that this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the

Commission’s disposition of all matters

remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit in

Florida Public Telecommunications

Ass’n. v, FCC, 54 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir.

1995).

51. It is further ordered that the

Secretary shall send a copy of this

NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96–354,

94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

(1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Communications common carriers;

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements; Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–15789 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96–124; RM–8813]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Winner

and Wessington Springs, SD

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by

Midwest Radio Corporation proposing

the substitution of Channel 252C1 for

Channel 253C1 at Winner, the

reallotment of Channel 252C1 from

Winner to Wessington Springs, South

Dakota, and the modification of Station

KGGK(FM)’s construction permit

accordingly. Channel 252C1 can be

allotted to Wessington Springs in

compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance separation

requirements without the imposition of

a site restriction. The coordinates for

Channel 252C1 at Wessington Springs

are North Latitude 44–05–12 and West

Longitude 98–34–24. In accordance

with Section 1.420(i) of the

Commission’s Rules, we will not accept

competing expressions of interest in the

use of Channel 252C1 at Wessington

Springs, or require the petitioner to

demonstrate the availability of an

additional equivalent class channel for

use by such parties.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before July 29, 1996, and reply

comments on or before August 13, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: John S. Neely, Esq., Miller &

Miller, P.C., P.O. Box 33003,

Washington, DC 20033 (Counsel for

Petitioner).