Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43689

20Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,623–20,625,

paras. 163–66.

21 Illinois Public Telecomm., No. 96–1394, slip

op. at 28.

22 Id. at 26, citing Democratic Cent. Comm. of the

Dist. of Columbia v. Washington Metro. Area

Transit Comm’n, 485 F.2d 785, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1973),

cert. denied, 415 U.S. 935 (1974) (Democratic

Central).

23 Id. at 27.

24 Id. (citing Southwestern Bell Corp. v. FCC, 896

F.2d 1378, 1382 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).

25 Illinois Public Telecomm., No. 96–1394, slip

op. at 28.

would accrue to the benefit of the

ratepayers and shareholders.’’ 20

14. The court held that the

Commission’s valuation methodology

with respect to the one-time transfer of

assets mandated by industry reform was

arbitrary and capricious and contrary to

precedent.21 The court concluded that

the Commission failed to recognize that

the court’s test in Democratic Central,

which the Commission declined to

apply, was designed to protect not only

the interests of ratepayers, but also the

competing interests of shareholders.22

The court found inappropriate under

Democratic Central the Commission’s

valuation methodology, because the

court held that the Commission was

attempting to transfer the increase in the

value of the payphone operations from

the LECs’ shareholders to ratepayers.

The court held that, under Democratic

Central, as a result of the Commission’s

price cap rules, investors rather than

ratepayers have borne the risk of loss on

payphone assets. Therefore, the court

concluded that investors should reap

the benefit of increases in the value of

such assets.23 The court stated that in

Southwestern Bell Corp. v. FCC, while

upholding the Commission’s affiliate

transactions rules, specifically ‘‘noted

Democratic Central’s continued

applicability to ‘one-time’ transfers

mandated by industry reform.’’ The

court held that the transfer of payphone

assets pursuant to § 276 fell within this

category.24 The court rejected upon

similar analysis a challenge by other

petitioners to the net book valuation

method required by the Commission

with respect to the reclassification of

payphone assets as nonregulated within

the same corporate entity.25

15. We seek comment on how the

asset valuation requirements for the

transfer of payphone assets established

in the Payphone Orders should be

revised to respond to the concerns

raised by the court. The court appears

to hold that net book value must be used

for one-time transfers mandated by

industry reform, which would apply to

payphone asset transfers. If other

approaches are recommended, parties

should address how such approaches

comply with the court’s Democratic

Central analysis.

III. Ex Parte Presentations

16. This Public Notice is a ‘‘permitbut-disclose proceeding and subject to

the ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements

under § 1.1206(b) of the rules, 47 CFR

1.1206(b), as revised. Persons making

oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that memoranda summarizing the

presentation must contain a summary of

the substance of the presentation and

not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description of the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as

revised. Other rules pertaining to oral

and written presentations are set forth

in § 1.1206(b), as well. The Commission

requires all written ex parte

presentations or summaries of oral ex

parte presentations in this proceeding to

be served on all parties to this

proceeding.

IV. Comment Filing Dates

17. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,

1.419, interested parties may file

comments with the Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 222, 1919 M St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 on or

before August 26, 1997, and reply

comments on or before September 9,

1997 from the release of this public

notice. To file formally in this

proceeding, participants must file an

original and four copies of all

comments, reply comments, and

supporting comments. In addition,

parties should file two copies of any

such pleadings with the Chief,

Enforcement Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, Stop 1600A, Room 6008, 2025

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Parties should also file one copy of any

documents filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

17. For further information, contact

Michael Carowitz, Rose Crellin, or Greg

Lipscomb, Enforcement Division,

Common Carrier Bureau, 202/418–0960.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–21819 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[I.D. 080597F]

RIN: 0648–AK14

Amendment 34 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Groundfish

Fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce

ACTION: Notice of availability of an

amendment to a fishery management

plan; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council) has

submitted Amendment 34 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Groundfish

Fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area (FMP) for Secretarial

review. Amendment 34 would authorize

an allocation of Atka mackerel to vessels

using jig gear. Annually, up to 2 percent

of the total allowable catch (TAC)

specified for this species in the Eastern

Aleutian Islands District (AI)/Bering Sea

subarea (BS) could be allocated to the jig

gear fleet fishing in this area. This

action is necessary to provide an

opportunity to a localized, small-vessel

jig gear fleet to fish for Atka mackerel

in summer months. The large-scale

trawl fisheries typically harvest the

available TAC for this species early in

the fishing year, which does not allow

the jig gear fishermen an opportunity for

a summer fishery. Comments from the

public are requested.

DATES: Comments on Amendment 34

must be submitted on or before October

14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on Amendment

34 should be submitted to Chief,

Fisheries Management Division, Alaska

Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,

AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Gravel, or

delivered to the Federal Building, 709

West 9th. Street, Juneau, AK. Copies of

Amendment 34 and the Environmental

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

prepared for the amendment are

available from NMFS at the above
43690 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules

address, or by calling the Alaska Region,

NMFS at 907–586–7228.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Salveson, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that

each Regional Fishery Management

Council submit any fishery management

plan (FMP) or plan amendment it

prepares to NMFS for review and

approval, disapproval, or partial

approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act

also requires that NMFS, upon receiving

an FMP or amendment, immediately

publish a document that the FMP or

amendment is available for public

review and comment. NMFS will

consider the public comments received

during the comment period in

determining whether to approve the

FMP or amendment.

Amendment 34 was adopted by the

North Pacific Fishery Management

Council at its June 1997 meeting and

would authorize an allocation of Atka

mackerel to vessels using jig gear.

Annually, up to 2 percent of the annual

TAC specified for Atka mackerel in the

Eastern AI/BS could be allocated to

vessels using jig gear as part of the

annual groundfish specifications

process. The percent allocation, up to

the 2 percent ceiling, would be based on

recent and anticipated harvest capacity

of the jig gear fleet. This amendment is

being proposed to respond to concerns

that the developing small vessel jig gear

fishery for Atka mackerel during spring

and summer months routinely is

precluded by the fast-paced trawl

fisheries for this species that typically

harvest the available TAC in the Eastern

AI/BS early in the fishing year.

NMFS will consider the public

comments received during the comment

period in determining whether to

approve the proposed amendment. A

proposed rule to implement

Amendment 34 has been submitted for

Secretarial review and approval. The

proposed rule to implement this

amendment is scheduled to be

published within 15 days of this

document.

Dated: August 11, 1997.

Gary C. Matlock,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–21596 Filed 8-14-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F