40350 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices

1Petitions were filed by Ameritech, Bell Atlantic,

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth),

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT),

and US West Communications, Inc. (US West).

These petitions and the associated LATA

modification requests are listed in Appendix A. A

LATA modification (LM) file number has been

assigned to each request. See Appendix A.

2LATAs define the geographic areas within

which a BOC may provide service. See infra paras.

3, 9. A LATA is defined as ‘‘a contiguous

geographic area (A) established before the date of

enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

by a Bell operating company such that no exchange

area includes points within more than 1

metropolitan statistical area, consolidated

metropolitan statistical area, or State, except as

expressly permitted under the AT&T Consent

Decree; or (B) established or modified by a Bell

operating company after such date of enactment

and approved by the Commission.’’ Section 3(25) of

the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47

U.S.C. 153(25).

3See 47 U.S.C. 153(25).

4A local calling area consists of one or more

telephone exchanges and is an area within which

subscribers can place calls without incurring any

additional charge over their regular monthly service

charge. See United States v. Western Electric, 569

F. Supp. 990, 1003 n.59 (D.D.C. 1983) (hereinafter

Western Electric). Local calling areas are established

by state regulatory commissions. See id. at 990,

1002 n.54. ELCS (also known as extended area

service or EAS) allows local telephone service rates

to apply to nearby telephone exchanges, thus

providing an expanded local calling area. See id.

5These LATA modification requests are

summarized in Appendix B.

6See Public Notice, ‘‘Commission Seeks

Comment on Petitions for Waiver of LATA

Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling

Service in Texas and North Carolina,’’ DA 96–1190,

released July 26, 1996 (First Public Notice); Public

Notice, ‘‘Comment Requested on Petitions for

Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to

Provide: (1) Expanded Local Calling Service (ELCS)

in Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia, and Between

Ohio and West Virginia, and Virginia and West

Virginia; and (2) Integrated Services Digital

Network (ISDN) in Hearne, Texas,’’ DA 97–109,

released January 15, 1997 (Second Public Notice).

7Comments were filed by AT&T Corp. (AT&T),

Intelcom Group (U.S.A.), Inc. (Intelcom), the North

Carolina Utilities Commission and the Public StaffNorth Carolina Utilities Commission (North

Carolina PUC), the Public Utilities Commission of

Ohio (Ohio PUC), the Virginia State Corporation

Commission (Virginia Commission), and Western

Reserve Telephone Company (Western Reserve).

Reply comments were filed by BellSouth, the North

Carolina PUC, and Southwestern Bell. Numerous

informal comments were also filed by individuals,

businesses, and local government entities in

support of individual LATA modification requests.

8SWBT’s petition for LATA relief in order to

provide integrated services digital network (ISDN)

in the Hearne, Texas LATA, see supra note 6, and

Ameritech’s request to provide ELCS from the

Aurora, Northfield and Twinsburg, Ohio exchanges

to the Akron, Ohio exchange, see id.; see also Public

Notice, ‘‘Commission Requests Comment on

Whether Section 271 of the Communications Act

Authorizes Ameritech to Carry Certain ELCS Traffic

Across a LATA Boundary,’’ released June 27, 1997,

will be addressed in separate orders.

9See US West’s Scio/Albany request, NSD–LM–

97–25, Appendix A.

10United States v. American Telephone and

Telegraph Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d

sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001

(1983).

Dated: July 21, 1997.

John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–19796 Filed 7–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 96–159; FCC 97–244]

Petitions for Limited Modification of

LATA Boundaries to Provide Expanded

Local Calling Service (ELCS) at

Various Locations

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In this Memorandum Opinion

and Order adopted July 3, 1997 and

released July 15, 1997, the Commission

grants 23 requests for limited

modification of local access and

transport area (LATA) boundaries to

permit certain Bell Operating

Companies (BOCs) to provide expanded

local calling service (ELCS) in various

communities. The order also sets forth

guidelines for future LATA modification

requests. The order will allow the BOCs

to provide ELCS in communities whose

borders extend accross existing LATA

boundaries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela Gerr, (202) 418–2357, or Robin

Smolen, (202) 418–2353, both of the

Network Services Division, Common

Carrier Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order, (FCC

97–244) adopted on July 3, 1997 and

released on July 15, 1997. The full text

of this Order is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center

(Room 239), 1919 M Street NW,

Washington, DC 20554. The complete

text may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Paperwork Reduction Act

OMB Control No.: 3060–0782.

Expiration Date: 01/31/98.

Title: Petitions for Limited

Modification of LATA Boundaries to

Provide Expanded Local Calling Service

(ELCS) at Various Locations.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 20

respondents; 8 hours per response (avg).

×5 responses annually; 800 total annual

burden hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Needs and Uses: The Commission has

provided voluntary guidelines for filing

expanded local calling service requests.

These guidelines will allow the

Commission to conduct smooth and

continuous processing of these requests.

The collection of information will

enable the Commission to determine if

there is a public need for expanded

local calling service in each area subject

to the request. Your response is

voluntary.

Public reporting burden for the

collection of information is as noted

above. Send comments regarding the

burden estimate or any other aspect of

the collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing the burden to

Performance Evaluation and Records

Management, Washington, DC 20554.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor

and a person is not required to respond

to a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control

number.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and

Order

I. Introduction

1. Five Bell Operating Companies

(BOCs) have filed petitions 1 with the

Commission requesting relief from the

effects of certain local access and

transport area (LATA) boundaries.2 The

petitions were filed pursuant to section

3(25) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, which permits

modification of LATA boundaries by

Bell Operating Companies (BOCs), if

such modifications are approved by the

Commission.3 The petitions request

LATA relief in order to provide

expanded local calling service (ELCS) 4

between communities that lie on

different sides of existing LATA

boundaries (ELCS requests).5 The

petitions were placed on public notice 6

and comments and replies were filed.7

2. There are 24 ELCS requests before

the Commission.8 For the reasons

discussed below, we grant 23 of the

ELCS requests and order amendment of

one request.9 We also provide

guidelines for future ELCS requests.

II. Background

A. ELCS Requests Under the Consent

Decree

3. On August 24, 1982, the United

States District Court for the District of

Columbia (Court) entered an order

(Consent Decree) that required AT&T to

divest its ownership of the BOCs.10 The
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices 40351

11See Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 993, 994.

12 Id. at 994.

13 Id.

14See id. at 1008 n.85.

15See United States v.Western Electric Co., Inc.,

569 F. Supp. 1057, 1110–13 & n.234 (D.D.C. 1983).

16See id.; Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 1008–

09.

17Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 1008, 1010,

1113.

18See supra note 4.

19Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 995, 1002

n.54.

20 Id. at 995.

21 Id. at 1002 n.54.

22 Id.

23See United States v. Western Electric Company,

Inc., No. 82–0192, slip op. at 3 n.8 (D.D.C. July 19,

1984) (hereinafter July 1984 Order).

24See e.g., United States v. Western Electric

Company, Inc., No. 82–0192 slip op. at 2, 3 n.3

(D.D.C. Jan. 31, 1985) (hereinafter Jan. 1985 Order);

United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc.,

No. 82–0192 (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 1993) (hereinafter Dec.

3, 1993 Order); United States v. Western Electric

Company, Inc., No. 82–0192 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 1993)

(hereinafter Dec. 17, 1993 Order).

25 See July 1984 Order, at 2 n.5.

26 See Jan. 1985 Order, at 2–3 & n.3.

27See July 1984 Order; Jan. 1985 Order; United

States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 82–

0192, slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. May 18, 1993)

(hereinafter May 1993 Order).

28 See e.g., Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 1002

n.54; July 1984 Order; Jan. 1985 Order.

29 Id.

30 See e.g., Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 1002

n.54 (optional ELCS plans denied); May 1993 Order

(optional ELCS plan denied); Dec. 3, 1993 Order

(measured-rate ELCS plan denied); Dec. 17, 1993

Order (measured-rate, optional ELCS plan denied).

31 Id.

32 See Dec. 3, 1993 Order.

33 See Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 1001,

1002 n.54; Dec. 17, 1993 Order at 3–4; Dec. 3, 1993

Order.

34 Dec. 17, 1993 Order at 5.

35 See id. at 4; See also May 1993 Order, at 4.

36 See May 18, 1993 Order at 4.

37Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

38Section 601(a)(1) of the 1996 Act states that

‘‘(a)ny conduct or activity that was, before the date

of enactment of this Act, subject to any restriction

or obligation imposed by the AT&T Consent Decree

shall, on and after such date, be subject to the

restrictions and obligations imposed by the

Continued

Court divided all Bell territory in the

continental United States into

geographic areas called LATAs.11 Under

the Consent Decree, the BOCs were

permitted to provide telephone service

within a LATA (intraLATA service), but

were not permitted to carry traffic across

LATA boundaries (interLATA

service).12 InterLATA traffic was to be

carried by interexchange carriers.13

4. The LATAs did not cover territory

served by independent telephone

companies (ITCs).14 The Court,

however, did classify some independent

exchanges as ‘‘associated’’ with a

particular LATA.15 Traffic between a

LATA and an associated exchange was

treated as intraLATA, and could be

carried by the BOC, while traffic

between a LATA and an unassociated

exchange was treated as interLATA, and

could not be carried by the BOC.16 The

ITCs were not subject to the restrictions

imposed by the Consent Decree, and

could carry traffic regardless of whether

that traffic crossed LATA boundaries.17

5. In establishing the LATAs, the

Court recognized that there were

existing local calling areas 18 that would

cross the newly created LATA

boundaries.19 The Court stated that the

LATAs were not intended to interfere

with local calling areas that had been

established by state regulators.20

Accordingly, the Court granted

‘‘exceptions’’ to permit BOCs to carry

interLATA traffic if necessary to

preserve existing ELCS arrangements.21

The Court found that such exceptions

were consistent with the purposes of the

Consent Decree because (1) they were

limited in scope, (2) they would avoid

additional charges being imposed on

ratepayers, and (3) it was unlikely that

toll traffic potentially subject to

competition would be affected.22

6. The Court subsequently received

more than a hundred requests for

waivers of the Consent Decree to permit

new interLATA ELCS routes. The

requests for new ELCS routes were

generally initiated by local subscribers

who asked their state commission to

approve an expanded local calling area.

If the proposed ELCS route was

intraLATA it could be ordered by the

state commission; if the route was

interLATA, the BOC would also have to

obtain a waiver from the Court. The

Court developed a streamlined process

for handling such requests both because

of the large number of requests involved

and because most of the requests were

non-controversial. Under this process,

the BOC would submit its waiver

request to the Department of Justice

(DOJ). DOJ would review the request

and then submit the request to the Court

along with DOJ’s recommendation.

7. In evaluating such requests, DOJ

and the Court considered the number of

customers or access lines involved.23

They also considered whether there was

a sufficiently strong community of

interest between the exchanges to justify

granting a waiver of the Consent Decree

to allow local calling.24 In particular,

they considered the state commission’s

community of interest finding and any

additional evidence supporting this

finding. A community of interest could

be demonstrated by such evidence as:

(1) Poll results indicating that customers

in the affected exchange were willing to

pay higher rates to be included in an

expanded local calling area; 25 (2) usage

data indicating a high level of calling

between the exchanges; and (3)

narrative statements describing how the

two exchanges were part of one

community and how the lack of local

calling between the exchanges caused

problems for community residents.26

The Court was willing to grant waivers

when the competitive effects were

minimal and a sufficient community of

interest across LATA boundaries was

shown.27 The Court frequently granted

waivers to permit interLATA ELCS.

8. The Court granted waivers for more

than a hundred flat-rate, non-optional

ELCS plans 28 that allow the provision of

traditional local telephone service

between nearby exchanges. Under such

plans, subscribers pay no extra charge

for calls beyond their established

monthly service charge (the plan

involves a flat-rate), and all subscribers

in the exchange are included in the plan

(the plan is non-optional).29 The Court

refused, however, to grant waivers for

optional or measured-rate ELCS plans.30

Under optional plans, subscribers may

chose to pay an additional monthly

charge for an expanded local calling

area,31 while under measured-rate plans,

subscribers pay measured-rates based on

such factors as duration, distance, and

time of day.32 The Court found that

granting waivers for such ELCS

arrangements could have an

anticompetitive effect because these

services were similar to the toll service

normally provided by interexchange

carriers, and that these arrangements

were basically discounted toll service

for calls that would otherwise be carried

competitively.33 The Court was

especially concerned that the discount

appeared to result from the fact that

BOCs, unlike interexchange carriers, did

not have to pay access charges on such

calls.34 The Court also noted that, in the

case of optional or measured-rate plans,

the state commission had not found a

sufficient community of interest

between the exchanges to justify

traditional local service, (i.e., flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS).35 Finally, the Court

expressed concern that allowing new

exceptions for measured-rate or optional

plans could lead to a ‘‘piecemeal

dismantling’’ of the prohibition on the

BOCs’’ provision of interLATA

service.36

B. ELCS Requests Under the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

9. On February 8, 1996, the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996

Act) became law, amending the

Communications Act of 1934 (Act).37

Pursuant to the 1996 Act, matters

previously subject to the Consent Decree

are now governed by the Act.38 Section
40352 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices

Communications Act of 1934 as amended by this

Act and shall not be subject to the restrictions and

obligations imposed by such Consent Decree.’’ On

April 11, 1996, the Court issued an order

terminating the AT&T Consent Decree and

dismissing all pending motions under the Consent

Decree as moot, effective February 8, 1996. See

United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc.,

No. 82–0192, 1996 WL 255904 (D.D.C. Apr. 11,

1996).

39Section 271(i)(1) of the Act defines ‘‘in-region

State’’ as a state in which a Bell operating company

or any of its affiliates was authorized to provide

wireline telephone exchange service pursuant to the

reorganization plan approved under the Consent

Decree, as in effect on the day before the date of

enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

47 U.S.C. 271(i)(1). Section 3(21) of the Act defines

‘‘interLATA service’’ as ‘‘telecommunications

between a point located in a local access and

transport area and a point located outside such

area.’’ 47 U.S.C. 153(21).

40 47 U.S.C. 271(b)(1). Section 271(f), however,

provides that BOCs are not prohibited from

engaging in an activity to the extent that such

activity was previously authorized by the Court. See

47 U.S.C. 271(f). Thus, BOCs may continue to serve

previously authorized interLATA ELCS routes. Id.

41See 47 U.S.C. § 160(a).

42See 47 U.S.C. § 160(d).

43See 47 U.S.C. § 153(25)(B).

44 See supra note 6.

45 Id.

46 Intelcom states that it is a provider of

competitive local access services and that it

operates networks in numerous parts of the country

including some of the LATAs affected by the

petitions in this proceeding. Intelcom Comments at

2–3.

47 AT&T Comments at 2–3.

48 Id. at 4.

49 Id.

50 Id. at 5.

51 Intelcom Comments at 3–4.

52 Id. at 4.

53 Id.

54See Virginia Commission Comments at 1–2.

55See supra para. 10.

56See infra para. 18.

271(b)(1) of the Act prohibits a BOC

from providing ‘‘interLATA services

originating in any of its ‘‘in-region’’

States’’ 39 until the BOC takes certain

steps to open its own market to

competition and the Commission

approves the BOC’s application to

provide such service.40 In addition,

while the Commission may forbear from

applying certain provisions of the Act

under certain circumstances,41 the

Commission may not forbear from

section 271.42 Section 3(25)(B) of the

Act provides that BOCs may modify

LATA boundaries, if such modifications

are approved by the Commission.43

10. Since passage of the 1996 Act, the

Commission has received six petitions

requesting LATA relief in order that

ELCS can be offered. On July 26, 1996

the Commission issued a public notice

requesting comment on petitions filed

by BellSouth and SWBT for a ‘‘waiver’’

of LATA boundaries.44 On January 15,

1997 the Commission issued a Second

Public Notice requesting comment on

petitions filed by Ameritech, Bell

Atlantic, and US West, and allowing

additional comment on the petitions

previously filed by BellSouth and

SWBT.45 The Second Public Notice

stated that, although several of the

petitions describe the relief requested as

a ‘‘waiver’’ of LATA boundaries, all of

the petitions cited section 3(25) as the

basis of the Commission’s jurisdiction to

act upon these requests. Accordingly,

the Commission stated that it would

treat all of these petitions as requests for

modification of LATA boundaries for

the limited purpose of providing the

specific service indicated in the request.

The Commission further stated that the

LATA boundaries would remain

unchanged for all other purposes.

III. Comments

11. In response to the First Public

Notice, formal comments or reply

comments were filed by AT&T,

BellSouth, Intelcom, 46 the North

Carolina PUC, and SWBT. AT&T states

that the Commission lacks authority to

waive LATA boundaries and that the

petitions can only be properly

characterized as LATA modification

requests if they propose to move a

LATA boundary so that certain calls

previously classified as intraLATA are

now interLATA, and other calls

previously classified as interLATA are

now intraLATA.47 AT&T further

contends that such LATA modification

requests raise serious competitive issues

because, if granted, they will completely

displace the interexchange carrier

currently providing that service.48 AT&T

also states that granting such requests

could allow a BOC to ‘‘chip away’’ at

the prohibition against its provision of

in-region interLATA service prior to

meeting the requirements of Section

271, thus reducing the BOCs’ incentive

to open its own local market to

competition.49 Accordingly, AT&T

concludes that LATA modifications

should be granted ‘‘sparingly, if at

all.’’ 50 Like AT&T, Intelcom also has

expressed concern about possible

anticompetitive effects 51 and states that

the Commission should approach these

and future LATA modification requests

with caution.52 Intelcom, however, takes

no position on the current petitions and

states that the proposed modifications

would appear to have no more than a de

minimis effect on competition.53

BellSouth, the North Carolina PUC, and

SWBT all strongly support the grant of

particular ELCS requests.

12. In response to the Second Public

Notice, comments were filed by the

Ohio PUC, the Virginia Commission and

Western Reserve. These petitions all

support granting particular ELCS

requests. The Virginia Commission, in

its comments, also requests approval for

a LATA boundary modification to

permit ELCS between the Waverly and

Wakefield exchanges in Virginia

(Virginia Commission’s Waverly/

Wakefield request). 54 This request was

not included in any of the LATA

modification petitions previously filed

with the Commission.55

IV. Discussion

A. General Considerations

13. Section 3(25) of the Act defines

LATA as those areas established prior to

enactment of the 1996 Act or

established or modified by a BOC after

such date of enactment and approved by

the Commission. Section 271 of the Act

prohibits a BOC from providing

interLATA services until such time as

certain enumerated conditions are

satisfied. Section 10(d) prohibits the

Commission from forbearing from

applying the requirements of section

271. Thus, for a BOC to provide service

on a new ELCS route that crosses

existing LATA boundaries, the statute

appears to require that BOC either to

modify the LATA so that the route no

longer crosses a LATA boundary and

obtain Commission approval therefor, or

satisfy the requirements of section 271.

14. The state commissions have

determined that certain communities

have an immediate need for traditional

local telephone service.56 None of the

BOCs, however, have yet met the

section 271 requirements and there is no

time limit by which they must do so.

Thus, requiring the BOCs to meet the

section 271 requirements would not be

the most expeditious way to ensure that

local telephone service can be provided

to these communities in a timely

manner. Furthermore, the section 271

requirements were intended to ensure

that BOCs do not prematurely enter into

the interexchange market. Given the

small number of access lines involved

for each of the proposed ELCS areas in

the petitions before the Commission, as

well as the type of service to be offered

(i.e., traditional local service), it is

highly unlikely that provision of ELCS

service would reduce a BOC’s

motivation to open its own market to

competition. Similarly, the small

volume of traffic would seem

inconsequential to any interexchange

carrier. Thus, requiring the BOCs to

meet the section 271 requirements prior

to offering this service would not further

Congress’s intent to guard against

competitive abuses.

15. While it appears that LATA

modification is the preferable means by
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices 40353

57 See supra paras. 7–8 (describing factors

considered by the Court).

58These 23 requests are summarized in Appendix

B.

59See id.

60The number of customers in these exchanges

ranged from 724 in the Claremont exchange, see

Appendix B (summary of Bell Atlantic’s Claremont/

Waverly request), to 7,495 in the Gloucester

exchange. Id. (summary of Bell Atlantic’s

Gloucester requests).

61See Comments of BellSouth, the North Carolina

PUC, the Ohio PUC, SWBT, the Virginia

Commission and Western Reserve. There were also

numerous informal comments from local residents,

businesses and local government entities

supporting various ELCS requests.

62See Appendix A.

63The BOC can provide the service without

meeting the section 271 requirements, see 47 U.S.C.

§ 271(a), and a separate affiliate is not required. See

47 U.S.C. 272(a)(2)(B).

64The BOC cannot provide other types of service

(such as measured-rate, optional, or toll service)

between the specified exchanges without meeting

the section 271 requirements, see 47 U.S.C. 271(a).

65See US West’s Scio/Albany request,

Appendices A and B.

66This policy is intended to ‘‘avoid the potential

inequity created by flat-rate (ELCS) whereby lowvolume users support the high volume (ELCS)

users.’’ See US West Petition, Appendix A at 8.

which the BOCs can achieve the goal of

providing ELCS service, a modification

of the boundary for all purposes in order

to accommodate the ELCS routes could

be counterproductive. If an exchange

were moved to another LATA for all

purposes, any existing local calling

routes between that exchange and the

original LATA would be lost because

such traffic would now be interLATA

and could no longer be carried by the

BOC. Instead the traffic would generally

be carried by an interexchange carrier

charging long distance rates.

Consequently, such action could merely

shift the same problem from one

community to another.

16. Thus, we believe that LATA

modifications for a ‘‘limited purpose’’

that would authorize BOCs to provide

only flat-rate, non-optional local calling

service between specific exchanges,

would best achieve the desired goals

discussed in paragraph 14. Modification

of the LATA for the limited purpose of

providing the ELCS routes would avoid

the anomalous situations described

above. In addition, limited

modifications would reduce the

potential for anticompetitive effects to a

greater degree than general LATA

modifications because the former limit

the amount of additional traffic that the

BOC may carry whereas the latter would

permit the BOC to offer any type of

service, including toll service, between

the new exchange and any other point

in its LATA.

17. LATA modification for a limited

purpose is both consistent with the

statute and serves the public interest.

Nothing in the statute or legislative

history indicates that a LATA cannot be

modified for a limited purpose. As

explained above, LATA waiver requests

to permit precisely the type of ELCS

traffic at issue here were regularly and

routinely granted by the Court under the

terms of the AT&T Consent Decree.

Although Congress did not include

corresponding authority when it

amended the Communications Act,

Congress did acknowledge the possible

need for changes to the LATA

boundaries by enacting section 3(25).

Nothing in either the statute or the

legislative history suggests a decision by

Congress intentionally to eliminate the

ability of a locality, with a demonstrated

community of interest that happens to

straddle a LATA boundary, to obtain

reasonably priced telephone service.

Thus a broad reading of the term

‘‘modify’’ in section 3(25) is reasonable.

Moreover, we will consider each

individual request carefully, weighing

the community need for the

modification against the potential harm

from BOC anticompetitive activity. We

find that this weighing can best be

accomplished by considering those

factors previously considered by the

Court.57

B. ELCS Requests

1. Flat-rate, Non-optional ELCS

18. Twenty-three of the pending

requests seek limited modifications of

LATA boundaries in order to provide

flat-rate, non-optional ELCS (i.e.,

traditional local service).58 We find that

these twenty-three requests demonstrate

a strong community need for the

proposed ELCS routes. We note that

each of the proposed ELCS routes, in the

twenty-three requests, was approved by

a state commission. Furthermore, each

request includes a demonstration of

need for the proposed modification.59 In

particular, each request indicates that

the ELCS route was approved after the

state commission found there was a

sufficient community of interest

between the exchanges to justify such

service. Each request also documented

this community of interest through

additional evidence including: (1) Poll

results showing that subscribers were

willing to pay higher monthly rates in

order to be included in the expanded

local calling area; (2) usage data

showing a high level of calling between

the potentially affected exchanges; and

(3) narrative statements explaining why

the exchanges to be part of the ELCS

area should be considered part of one

community. These statements indicated

that many community services (such as

hospitals, doctors offices, schools,

stores, public transportation facilities,

and government offices) were located in

a nearby community in the adjacent

LATA, and that the need to make

interLATA toll calls for such services

caused significant expenses for

residents. We note that granting ELCS

petitions removes the proposed routes

from the competitive interexchange

market and that some LATA

modifications could reduce the BOCs’

incentive to open their own markets to

competition pursuant to section 271.

The LATA modifications proposed here,

however, would expand the petitioning

BOCs’ provision of local service to

limited areas and each request involves

only a small number of customers or

access lines.60 Given the limited amount

of traffic and the type of service

involved, we find that the proposed

modifications will not have a significant

anticompetitive effect on the

interexchange market or on the BOCs’

incentive to open their own markets to

competition. Finally, we note that

several commenters strongly urge the

Commission to grant particular ELCS

requests,61 and that no commenter has

argued that any one of these 23 requests

should be denied.

19. We conclude that, in each of the

twenty-three requests, the need for the

proposed ELCS routes outweighs the

risk of potential anticompetitive effects.

Furthermore, we are approving these

modifications solely for the limited

purpose of allowing the BOC to provide

a particular type of service, namely, flatrate, non-optional local calling service,

between specific exchanges or

geographic areas.62 In each case, the

LATA is not modified to permit the

BOC to offer any other type of service,

or calls that originate or terminate

outside the specified areas. Thus, flatrate, non-optional ELCS between the

specified exchanges will be deemed

intraLATA, and the provisions of the

Act governing intraLATA service will

apply.63 Other types of service between

the specified exchanges will be deemed

interLATA, and the provisions of the

Act governing interLATA service will

apply.64

2. Measured-Rate, Optional ELCS

20. US West requests a LATA

modification in order to provide

measured-rate, optional ELCS from its

Albany exchange in the Eugene, Oregon

LATA to the Scio Mutual Telephone

Association’s Scio exchange.65 US West

states that the Oregon state commission

requires carriers to offer both flat-and

measured-rate options for all ELCS

routes in the state.66 Accordingly, US

West’s plan would offer subscribers the
40354 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices

67See Letter from John L. Traylor, Senior

Attorney, US West, Inc., to Common Carrier Bureau,

Federal Communications Commission (Feb. 14,

1997). These options and rates are for residential

subscribers. There are different rates and options

offered to business subscribers. Id.

68 Id.

69See US West Petition at 4.

70 Id.

71Cf. May 1993 Order at 4.

72We note that even if US West does not file such

an amendment at this time, our ruling here does not

preclude relief to residents of the Albany and Scio

exchanges. First, the request may be resubmitted at

any time if the state commission determines that

the required community of interest exists. This

service could also be offered by an alternative

provider, if available, and US West will be able to

offer interLATA service if it meets the requirements

of section 271.

73 47 CFR 1.748(a). Section 1.748(a) provides that

an application may be dismissed without prejudice

if the applicant fails to comply with a request for

additional information.

74 47 CFR 0.91, 0.291.

75These guidelines have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under

OMB control number 3060–0782. See Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13.

76See section 25(3) (LATAs may be ‘‘modified by

a Bell operating company’’).

77 47 CFR 1.742–43.

78See the 24 individual requests listed in

Appendix A.

79See supra para. 4.

following options: (1) Unlimited calling

for a flat monthly charge; (2) a ‘‘usage

only’’ option in which calls are charged

at a set rate per minute; and (3) a three

or six hour ‘‘measured usage’’ package.67

US West argues that the proposed ELCS

plan is not the type of ‘‘optional’’ plan

previously rejected by the Court because

subscribers would have to select one of

the ELCS plans, and could not choose

between the ELCS plan and the service

offered by an interexchange carrier.68

US West also states that the Scio

exchange has approximately 1600

access lines,69 and that the state

commission found there was a

‘‘community of interest’’ between the

exchanges and that the ELCS route was

necessary to meet the ‘‘critical needs’’ of

Scio exchange customers.70

21. We do not approve this proposed

LATA modification. US West’s request

is related to a measured-rate optional

ELCS plan. Furthermore, although the

state commission found that there was

a ‘‘community of interest’’ between the

exchanges, it did not make a specific

finding that there was a sufficient

community of interest to warrant

traditional local service (i.e., flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS). Subscribers

generally can be expected to prefer, and

to benefit from, reduced rate service to

nearby areas but ELCS plans with

optional or measured-rate elements are

similar to the toll services traditionally

offered by interexchange carriers. We

find that modifying a LATA boundary

in order to permit a BOC to provide

measured-rate service would allow the

BOC to provide what would otherwise

be interLATA toll service without first

meeting the requirements of section 271.

Allowing LATA modifications for such

ELCS plans might well lead to

substantial expansion of BOC service,

without the BOC satisfying the section

271 requirements.71 The potential

anticompetitive effect of optional and

measured-rate plans, and the lack of any

showing of a need for traditional local

telephone service (i.e., flat-rate, nonoptional ELCS) between the Albany and

Scio exchanges, leads us to deny US

West’s request. While we recognize the

state commission’s interest in providing

additional choices to consumers, we

will not approve such optional or

measured-rate plans for the reasons

discussed above.

22. We note, however, that the Scio/

Albany request was placed on public

notice and that no objections were filed.

Moreover, because of its general policy

requiring both flat-and measured-rate

options on all ELCS routes, the state

commission apparently never

considered whether a sufficient

community of interest existed between

the Albany and Scio exchanges to justify

flat-rate, non-optional ELCS. Under

these circumstances, we find that the

public interest will best be served by

our giving US West an opportunity to

seek further clarification from the state

commission. Accordingly, we direct US

West to amend its request within 60

days of the release date of this order to

state whether it has obtained a further

ruling from the state commission that

addresses whether there is a sufficient

community of interest to warrant flatrate, non-optional ELCS between the

Albany and Scio exchanges and states

whether such service has been

approved.72 If no amendment is filed

within the 60 day period, the request

will be dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Section 1.748 of the

Commission’s rules.73

V. Future LATA Modification Requests

23. The Common Carrier Bureau has

authority to act on petitions to modify

LATA boundaries, consistent with the

principles established in this order,

pursuant to the delegation of authority

contained in §§ 0.91 and 0.291 of the

Commission’s rules.74 We conclude that

the following set of guidelines will

assist the BOCs in filing those LATA

modification petitions that involve

ELCS and the Bureau in acting on those

petitions.75 First, we request that each

ELCS petition be filed by the BOC76

pursuant to the application filing

requirements set forth in §§ 1.742 and

1.743 of the Commission’s rules.77

Second, we ask that each individual

ELCS LATA modification request be the

subject of a separate petition.78 Third,

we request that each petition be labeled

‘‘Request for Limited Modification of

LATA Boundaries to Provide ELCS

Between the (exchange name) and the

(exchange name).’’ Finally, we request

that each ELCS petition include the

following information, under separately

numbered and labeled categories, as

indicated below:

(1) Type of service (e.g., flat-rate, nonoptional ELCS);

(2) Direction of service (one-way, twoway; if one-way, indicate direction of

service);

(3) Exchanges involved (identity name

of each exchange, the LATA and state in

which each exchange is located; if an

exchange is located in independent

territory, indicate the LATA, if any,

with which the exchange is

associated);79

(4) Name of carriers (name of carrier

providing local service in each

exchange);

(5) State commission approval

(include a copy of that approval);

(6) Number of access lines or

customers (for each exchange);

(7) Usage data (e.g., average number

of calls per access line per month from

exchange A to exchange B, from

exchange B to exchange A, and, if

available, percent of subscribers making

such calls each month);

(8) Poll results (for each exchange in

which a poll was required by applicable

state procedures and conducted in

accordance with those procedures.

Indicate the amount of proposed rate

increase in those exchanges);

(9) Community of interest statement (a

statement explaining why the two

exchanges should be considered part of

a single community and why

community residents need the ELCS);

(10) Map (showing the exchanges and

LATA boundary involved and including

a scale showing distance); and

(11) Other pertinent information (e.g.,

copies of state commission reports,

summary of hearing testimony).

24. If any of the above information is

unavailable or inapplicable to a

particular ELCS petition (for example, if

polling is not required by state

procedures), the petition should so

indicate. A carrier will be deemed to

have made a prima facie case

supporting grant of the proposed

modification if the ELCS petition: (1)

Has been approved by the state

commission; (2) proposes only
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices 40355

80See supra para. 18 and note 60.

81See supra para. 12.

traditional local service (i.e., flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS); (3) indicates that

the state commission found a sufficient

community of interest to warrant such

service; (4) documents this community

of interest through such evidence as poll

results, usage data, and descriptions of

the communities involved; and (5)

involves a limited number of customers

or access lines.80

25. We request that ELCS requests

filed with the Commission, but not

addressed in this order (including the

Virginia Commission’s Waverly/

Wakefield request),81 be re-filed so that

they comply with these guidelines. Each

petition will be assigned a LATA

modification (LM) file number and

placed on public notice.

VI. Conclusion

26. For the reasons set forth above, we

approve the 23 requests for LATA relief

in order to provide flat-rate, nonoptional ELCS. These LATAs are

modified solely for the limited purposes

indicated in the requests, and shall

remain unchanged for all other

purposes. In addition, we allow US

West an additional 60 days in which to

amend its Scio/Albany request. Finally,

we establish guidelines to direct the

filing of future ELCS requests. These

actions serve the public interest by

permitting minor LATA modifications

when such modifications are necessary

to meet the needs of local subscribers

and will not have any significant effect

on competition.

VII. Ordering Clauses

27. Accordingly, it is ordered,

pursuant to sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 153(25), 154(i), that

the requests of Ameritech, Bell Atlantic,

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.

(BellSouth), Southwestern Bell

Telephone Company (SWBT), and US

West Communications, Inc. (US West),

for LATA modifications for the limited

purpose of providing flat-rate, nonoptional ELCS at specific locations,

identified in File Nos. NSD–LM–97–2

through NSD–LM–97–24, are approved.

These LATA boundaries are modified

solely for the purpose of providing flatrate, non-optional ELCS between points

in the specific exchanges or geographic

areas indicated in the requests. The

LATA boundary for all other services

shall remain unchanged.

28. It is further ordered, pursuant to

sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 153(25), 154(i), that

the Virginia State Corporation

Commission’s request for a LATA

modification to permit ELCS between

the Waverly and Wakefield exchanges is

dismissed without prejudice.

29. It is further ordered, pursuant to

sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 153(25), 154(i), that

US West Communications, Inc. (US

West) shall amend its request for

approval of a LATA modification to

provide ELCS from the Albany exchange

in the Eugene, Oregon LATA to the Scio

Mutual Telephone Association’s Scio

exchange, File No. NSD–LM–97–25, as

indicated herein, within 60 days of the

release date of this order. If no

amendment is filed, US West’s LATA

modification request will be dismissed

without prejudice.

30. It is further ordered that pursuant

to section 416(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.

416(a), the Secretary shall serve a copy

of this order upon the petitioners listed

in Attachment A.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Attachment A—List of Petitions and LATA

Modification Requests

Ameritech’s November 12, 1996 Petition

1. Request to provide one-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS from Ameritech’s Duffy

exchange in the Columbus, Ohio LATA to

Bell Atlantic’s New Martinsville exchange in

the Clarksburg, West Virginia LATA

(Ameritech’s Duffy/New Martinsville

request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–2.

Bell Atlantic’s January 14, 1997 Petition

2. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Waverly exchange in the Norfolk, Virginia

LATA and GTE’s Claremont exchange (Bell

Atlantic’s Claremont/Waverly request)—File

No. NSD–LM–97–3.

3. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Hampton zone of the Metropolitan exchange

area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE’s

Gloucester exchange (Bell Atlantic’s

Gloucester/Hampton zone request)—File No.

NSD–LM–97–4.

4. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Newport News zone of the Metropolitan

exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA

and GTE’s Gloucester exchange (Bell

Atlantic’s Gloucester/Newport News zone

request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–5.

5. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Peninsula zone of the Metropolitan exchange

area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE’s

Gloucester exchange (Bell Atlantic’s

Gloucester/Peninsula zone request)—File No.

NSD–LM–97–6.

6. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Poquoson zone of the Metropolitan exchange

area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE’s

Gloucester exchange (Bell Atlantic’s

Gloucester/Poquoson zone request)—File No.

NSD–LM–97–7.

7. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Hampton zone of the Metropolitan exchange

area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE’s

Hayes exchange in the Richmond, Virginia

LATA (Bell Atlantic’s Hayes/Hampton zone

request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–8.

8. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Newport News zone of the Metropolitan

exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA

and GTE’s Hayes exchange in the Richmond,

Virginia LATA (Bell Atlantic’s Hayes/

Newport News zone request)—File No. NSD–

LM–97–9.

9. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Peninsula zone of the Metropolitan exchange

area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE’s

Hayes exchange (Bell Atlantic’s Hayes/

Peninsula zone request)—File No. NSD–LM–

97–10.

10. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Poquoson zone of the Metropolitan exchange

area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE’s

Hayes exchange (Bell Atlantic’s Hayes/

Poquoson zone request)—File No. NSD–LM–

97–11.

11. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Honaker exchange in the Roanoke, Virginia

LATA and GTE’s Richlands exchange in the

Bluefield, West Virginia Independent Market

Area (Bell Atlantic’s Honaker/Richlands

request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–12.

12. Request to provide one-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS from Bell Atlantic’s

Mason exchange in the Charleston, West

Virginia LATA to the Pomeroy and

Middleport exchanges in Ohio (Bell

Atlantic’s Mason/Pomeroy-Middleport

request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–13.

13. Request to provide one-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS from Bell Atlantic’s New

Florence exchange in the Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania LATA to GTE’s Johnstown

exchange (Bell Atlantic’s New Florence/

Johnstown request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–

14.

14. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic’s

Stone Mountain exchange in the Roanoke,

Virginia LATA and the Lynchburg exchange

in the Lynchburg, Virginia LATA (Bell

Atlantic’s Stone Mountain/Lynchburg

request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–15.

BellSouth Telecommunications’ (BellSouth)

July 2, 1996 Petition

15. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between BellSouth’s

Raleigh exchange in the Raleigh, North

Carolina LATA and Carolina Telephone and

Telegraph Company’s (Carolina Telephone)

Franklinton and Louisburg exchanges

(BellSouth’s Franklinton-Louisburg/Raleigh

request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–16.

16. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between BellSouth’s

Zebulon exchange in the Raleigh, North

Carolina LATA and Carolina Telephone’s
40356 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices

Louisburg exchange (BellSouth’s Louisburg/

Zebulon request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–17.

17. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between BellSouth’s

Apex, Cary, and Raleigh exchanges in the

Raleigh, North Carolina LATA and Carolina

Telephone’s Pittsboro exchange (BellSouth’s

Pittsboro/Apex-Cary-Raleigh request)—File

No. NSD–LM–97–18.

18. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between BellSouth’s

Chapel Hill exchange in the Raleigh, North

Carolina LATA and the Saxapahaw exchange

in the Greensboro, North Carolina LATA

(BellSouth’s Saxapahaw/Chapel Hill

request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–19.

19. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between BellSouth’s

Wilmington exchange and that portion of the

Scotts Hill exchange served by the 270 prefix

in the Wilmington, North Carolina LATA,

and Carolina Telephone’s Holly Ridge

exchange (BellSouth’s Scotts Hill-Holly

Ridge/Wilmington request)—File No. NSD–

LM–97–20.

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company’s

(SWBT) June 25, 1996 Petition

20. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between SWBT’s Albany

exchange in the Abilene, Texas LATA and

SWBT’s Breckenridge exchange in the Dallas,

Texas LATA (SWBT’s Albany/Breckenridge

request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–21.

21. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate,

non-optional ELCS between United/Centel’s

Pawnee exchange and SWBT’s Kenedy and

Karnes/Fall City exchanges in the San

Antonio, Texas LATA (SWBT’s Pawnee/

Kenedy-Karnes-Fall City request)—File No.

NSD–LM–97–22.

US West Communications’ (US West)

November 4, 1996 Petition

22. Request to provide flat-rate, nonoptional ELCS from US West’s Omaha

common service area in the Omaha, Nebraska

LATA to Lincoln Telephone & Telegraph

Company’s (LT&T’s) 234 exchange (serving

the communities of Cedar Creek, Louisville,

and Manley, Nebraska) (US West’s 234/

Omaha request)—File No. NSD–LM–97–23.

23. Request to provide flat-rate, nonoptional ELCS from US West’s Omaha

common service area in the Omaha, Nebraska

LATA to LT&T’s Murray exchange (US

West’s Murray/Omaha request)—File No.

NSD–LM–97–24.

US West Communications’ (US West)

November 4, 1996 Petition

24. Request to provide measured-rate,

optional ELCS from US West’s Albany

exchange in the Eugene, Oregon LATA to the

Scio Mutual Telephone Association’s Scio

exchange (US West’s Scio/Albany request)—

File No. NSD–LM–97–25.

[FR Doc. 97–19776 Filed 7–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

SUMMARY: The FDIC, as part of its

continuing effort to reduce paperwork

and respondent burden, invites the

general public and other Federal

agencies to take this opportunity to

comment on proposed and/or

continuing information collections, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Currently, the FDIC is soliciting

comments concerning an information

collection titled ‘‘Application for

Consent to Exercise Trust Powers.’’

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before September 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are

invited to submit written comments to

Steven F. Hanft, FDIC Clearance Officer,

(202) 898–3907, Office of the Executive

Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation, 550 17th Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20429. Comments may

be hand-delivered to the guard station at

the rear of the 17th Street building

(located on F Street), on business days

between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Fax

number (202) 898–3838; Internet

address: comments@fdic.gov]). All

comments should refer to ‘‘Application

for Consent to Exercise Trust Powers.’’

A copy of the comments may also be

submitted to the OMB desk officer for

the FDIC: Alexander Hunt, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, New

Executive Office Building, Room 3208,

Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven F. Hanft, at the address

identified above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal

to renew the following currently

approved collection of information:

Title: Application for Consent to

Exercise Trust Powers.

OMB Number: 3064–0025.

Frequency of Response: Occasional.

Estimated Total Annual Responses:

50.

Estimated Time per Response: 16

hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 800

hours.

General Description of the Collection:

Section 333.2 of FDIC’s regulation 12

CFR 333 prohibits any insured state

nonmember bank from changing the

general character of its business without

the prior written consent of the FDIC.

The exercise of trust powers by a bank

is usually considered to be a change in

the general character of a bank’s

business if the bank did not exercise

those powers previously because trust

powers create a new fiduciary

relationship. Therefore, unless a bank is

currently exercising trust powers, it

must file a formal application to obtain

the FDIC’s written consent to exercise

trust powers. Each application

submitted by a bank is evaluated by the

FDIC to verify the qualifications of bank

management to administer a trust

department to ensure that the bank’s

financial condition will not be

jeopardized as a result of trust

operations.

Request for Comment

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the FDIC’s functions, including whether

the information has practical utility; (b)

the accuracy of the estimates of the

burden of the information collection,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the information collection on

respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

At the end of the comment period, the

comments and recommendations

received will be analyzed to determine

the extent to which the collection

should be modified prior to submission

to OMB for review and approval.

Comments submitted in response to this

notice also will be summarized or

included in the FDIC’s requests to OMB

for renewal of this collection. All

comments will become a matter of

public record.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of

July 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–19807 Filed 7–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–M

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of the

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5

U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that

at 10:28 a.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 1997,

the Board of Directors of the Federal