66368 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices

hearing will be published in the Federal

Register. Notices will also be mailed to

all interested persons receiving copies

of the proposed general permit.

Appeal of Permit: Within 120 days

following the service of notice of EPA’s

final permit decision under 40 CFR

124.15, any interested person may

appeal the general permit in the Federal

Court of Appeal in accordance with

section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.

Persons affected by a general permit

may not challenge the conditions of the

permit as a right of further EPA

proceedings. Instead, they may either

challenge the permit in court or apply

for an individual NPDES permit and

then request a formal hearing on the

issuance or denial of an individual

permit.

Administrative Record: The complete

administrative record for the draft

general permit is available for public

review; contact Florence Carroll at the

telephone number below in the EPA

Region 10. Copies of the draft general

NPDES permit and fact sheet are

available upon request from the Region

10 Public Information Center at the

following telephone number: 1–800–

424–4EPA(4372)if calling from Idaho,

Oregon, and Washington and 1–206–

553–1200 if calling from Alaska and all

other states.

ADDRESSES: Public comments should be

sent to: Environmental Protection

Agency Region 10, NPDES Compliance

Unit (OW–133), Attn: Florence Carroll,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Florence Carroll, of EPA Region 10, at

the address listed above or telephone

(206) 553–1760.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: After

review of the facts presented in the

notice printed above, I hereby certify

pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C.

605(b) that this general NPDES permit

will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, the permit reduces a

significant administrative burden on

regulated sources.

Dated: December 5, 1997.

Roger K. Mochnick,

Assistant Director, Office of Water.

[FR Doc. 97–32921 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Public Information Collections

Approved by Office of Management

and Budget

December 12, 1997.

The Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) has received Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

approval for the following public

information collections pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. 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. For

further information contact Shoko B.

Hair, Federal Communications

Commission, (202) 418–1379.

Federal Communications Commission

OMB Control No.: 3060–0806.

Expiration Date: 05/31/98.

Title: Universal Service—Schools and

Libraries Universal Service Program.

Form No.: FCC Forms 470 and 471.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 50,000

respondents; 12 hours per response

(avg.); 600,000 total annual burden

hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Description: On May 8, 1997, the

Commission adopted rules in CC Docket

96–45 providing discounts on all

telecommunications services, Internet

access, and internal connections for all

eligible schools and libraries. The

following forms will be used to

implement these requirements and

obligations: a. FCC Form 470

‘‘Description of Services Requested and

Certification.’’ Schools and libraries

ordering telecommunications services,

Internet access, and internal

connections under the universal service

discount program must submit a

description of the services desired to the

Administrator. Schools and libraries

may use the same description they use

to meet the requirement that they

generally face to solicit competitive

bids. The Administrator will then post

a description of the services sought on

a website for all potential competing

service providers to see and respond to

as if they were requests for proposals

(RFPs). 47 CFR 54.504(b)(2), 47 CFR

54.504(b)(3). Pursuant to section 254(h)

of the 1996 Act, schools and libraries

must certify under oath that: (1) The

school or library is an eligible entity

under section 254(h)(4); (2) the services

requested will be used solely for

educational purposes; (3) the services

will not be sold, resold, or transferred in

consideration for money or any other

thing of value; and (4) if the services are

being purchased as part of an aggregated

purchase with other entities, the

identities of all co-purchasers and the

portion of the services being purchased

by the school or library. 47 CFR

54.504(b)(2). For schools ordering

telecommunications services at the

individual school level (i.e. primarily

non-public schools), the person ordering

such services should certify to the

Administrator the percentage of

students eligible in that school for the

national school lunch program (or other

comparable indicator of economic

disadvantage ultimately selected by the

Commission). This requirement arises in

the context of determining which

schools are eligible for the greater

discounts being offered to economically

disadvantaged schools. For schools

ordering telecommunications services at

the school district level, the person

ordering such services for the school

district should certify to the

Administrator the number of students in

each of its schools eligible for the

national school lunch program (or other

comparable indicator of economic

disadvantage). Schools and libraries

must also certify that they have

developed a technology plan that has

been approved by an independent entity

or the Administrator. The technology

plan should demonstrate that they will

be able to deploy any necessary

hardware, software, and wiring, and to

undertake any necessary teacher

training required to use the services

ordered pursuant to the section 254(h)

discount effectively. 47 CFR

54.504(b)(2). (No. of respondents:

50,000; hours per response: 6 hours;

total annual burden: 300,000). b. FCC

Form 471 ‘‘Services Ordered and

Certification.’’ Schools and libraries that

have ordered telecommunications

services, Internet access, and internal

connections under the universal service

discount program must file FCC Form

471 with the Administrator. This form

requires schools and libraries to indicate

whether funds are being requested for

an existing contract, a master contract or

whether it wishes to terminate service.

Form 471 requires schools and libraries

to list all services that have been

ordered and the corresponding discount

to which it is entitled. The school or

library must also estimate its funding

needs for the current funding year and

for the following funding year. 47 CFR

54.504(b)(2). All schools and libraries

planning to order services eligible for
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices 66369

universal service discounts must file

FCC Forms 470 and 471. The purpose of

this information is to help determine

which schools are eligible for the greater

discounts. Schools and libraries must

certify to the Administrator that they

have developed an approved technology

plan via Form 470. Copies of the forms

may be obtained via e-mail from:

<washtemp@neca.org>. Obligation to

respond: Required to obtain benefits.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0807.

Expiration Date: 05/31/98.

Title: 47 CFR 51.803 and

Supplemental Procedures for Petitions

Pursuant to Section 252(e) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 50

respondents; 40.8 hours per response

(avg.); 2040 total annual burden hours

for all collections.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Description: Any interested party

seeking preemption of a state

commission’s jurisdiction based on the

state commission’s failure to act shall

notify the Commission as follows: (1)

File with the Secretary of the

Commission a detailed petition,

supported by an affidavit, that states

with specificity the basis for any claim

that it has failed to act; and (2) serve the

state commission and other parties to

the proceeding on the same day that the

party serves the petition on the

Commission. Within 15 days of the

filing of the petition, the state

commission and parties to the

proceeding may file a response to the

petition. See 47 U.S.C. 252 and CFR

51.803. In a Public Notice (DA 97–

2540), the Commission sets out

procedures for filing petitions for

preemption pursuant to section

252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended. Section 252(e)(5)

provides that ‘‘[i]f a State commission

fails to act to carry out its responsibility

under this section in any proceeding or

other matter under this section, then the

Commission shall issue an order

preempting the State commission’s

jurisdiction of that proceeding or matter

within 90 days after being notified (or

taking notice) of such failure, and shall

assume the responsibility of the State

commission under this section with

respect to the proceeding or matter and

act for the State commission.’’ (1) Filing

of Petitions for Preemption. Each party

seeking preemption should caption its

preemption petition, ‘‘Petition of

[Petitioner’s Name] pursuant to Section

252(e)(5) of the Communications Act

(the Act).’’ In addition, on the date of

the petition’s filing, the petitioner

should serve a copy of the petition by

hand delivery on the Common Carrier

Bureau, and send a copy to the

Commission’s contractor for public

service records duplication. Section

51.803(a)(2) of the Commission’s rules

requires each party seeking preemption

pursuant to section 252(e)(5) to ‘‘ensure

that the state commission and the other

parties to the proceeding or matter for

which preemption is sought are served

with the petition * * * on the same

date that the petitioning party serves the

petition on the Commission.’’ Therefore,

each section 252(e)(5) petitioner should

state in its certificate of service the steps

it is taking to comply with this

requirement (e.g., hand delivery or

overnight mail). Petitions seeking

preemption must be supported by

affidavit and state with specificity the

basis for the petition and any

information that supports the claim that

the state has failed to act. See 47 CFR

51.803. Each petitioner should append

to its petition the full text of any State

commission decision regarding the

proceeding or other matter giving rise to

the petition as well as the relevant

portions of any transcripts, letters, or

other documents on which the

petitioner relies. Each petitioner should

also provide a chronology of that

proceeding or matter that lists, along

with any other relevant dates, the date

the petitioner requested

interconnection, services, or network

elements pursuant to section 251 of the

Act, the dates of any requests for

mediation or arbitration pursuant to

section 252(a)(2) or (b)(1), and the dates

of any arbitration decisions in

connection with the proceeding or

matter. (No. of respondents: 50; hours

per response: 40 hours; total annual

burden: 2000). b. Submission of Written

Comments by Interested Third Parties.

Interested third parties may file

comments on a preemption petition in

accordance with a public notice to be

issued by the Commission. (No. of

respondents: 2; hours per response: 20

hours; total annual burden: 40 hours).

All of the requirements would be used

to ensure that petitioners have complied

with their obligations under the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended. Obligation to respond:

Mandatory.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0791.

Expiration Date: 11/30/2000.

Title: Accounting for Judgments and

Other Costs Associated with Litigation,

CC Docket No. 93–240.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 1

respondents; 36 hours per response

(avg.); 36 total annual burden hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Description: In CC Docket No. 93–240,

the Commission adopted accounting

rules that would: require carriers to

account for adverse federal antitrust

judgments and post-judgment

settlements of federal antitrust claims

below the line in Account 7370, a

nonoperating account for special

charges. With regard to settlements of

such lawsuits, there will be a

presumption that carriers can recover

the portion of the settlement that

represents the avoidable costs of

litigation, provided that the carrier

makes a required showing. To receive

recognition of its avoided costs of

litigation, a carrier must demonstrate, in

a request for special relief, the avoided

costs of litigation by showing the

amount corresponding to the additional

litigation expenses discounted to

present value, that the carrier

reasonably estimates it would have paid

if it had not settled. Settlement costs in

excess of the avoided costs of litigation

are presumed not recoverable unless a

carrier rebuts that presumption by

showing the basic factors that indicated

the carrier to settle and demonstrating

that ratepayers benefited from the

settlement. A carrier requesting recovery

of the avoided costs of litigation must

accompany its request with clear and

convincing evidence that, without the

settlement, it would have incurred the

expenses it estimates. The evidence will

vary according to the circumstances.

Among the data a carrier may provide

are any avoidable cost estimates

provided by the law firm representing

the carrier, an estimate of attorney hours

needed to complete the case along with

the hourly rates for the attorneys

involved, information regarding the

discovery remaining to be completed,

the amount of trial time scheduled by

the judge, and information regarding the

number of witnesses or documents that

would have been introduced at trial,

including any pretrial statements filed

with the court, costs of expert witnesses,

travel time, saved in-house counsel

replacement costs, and any other

material the carrier considers relevant.

The avoided costs of litigation of a prejudgment settlement would include the

anticipated costs of litigating until a

judgment. The avoided cost of litigation

of a post-judgment settlement would

anticipate a successful appeal in the

particular case. A fundamental
66370 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices

requirement of Title II of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, is that ‘‘all charges for and in

connection with interstate

communication service, shall be just

and reasonable.’’ This provision

safeguards consumers against rates that

are unreasonably high and guarantees

carriers that they will not be required to

charge rates that are so low as to be

confiscatory. Carriers under the

Commission’s jurisdiction must be

allowed to recover the reasonable costs

of providing service to ratepayers,

including reasonable and prudent

expenses and a fair return on

investment. Obligation to respond:

Mandatory. OMB Control No.: 3060–0760.

Expiration Date: 05/31/98.

Title: Access Charge Reform, CC

Docket No. 96–262 (First Report and

Order); Second Order on

Reconsideration and Memorandum

Opinion and Order; and Third Report

and Order.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit. Estimated Annual Burden: 14

respondents; 129,001 hours per

response (avg); 1,806,018 total annual

burden hours (for all collections

approved under this control number). Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $33,000.

Frequency of Response: On occasion;

one-time requirement.

Description: In CC Docket No. 96–262,

the Commission adopted a Third Report

and Order. In the Third Report and

Order, FCC adopts, consistent with

principles of cost causation and

economic efficiency, that where price

cap LECs use general purpose

computers and other general support

facilities (GSF) to provide nonregulated

billing and collection services to

interexchange carriers, such GSF costs

should not be allocated to these LECs’

regulated access and interexchange

categories but, instead, should be

allocated to their nonregulated billing

and collection categories. In the Third

Report and Order, the Commission

requires affected price cap LECs to make

certain exogenous adjustments to their

respective price cap indices (PCIs) and

related basket indices. LECs affected by

this Order are those price cap LECs that

use regulated assets to provide

nonregulated billing and collection

services to interexchange carriers. For

the purposes of estimating the

information collection burdens for the

Third Report and Order, we assume all

price cap LECs are affected by the

Order. Such LECs must determine the

amount of GSF costs that they allocated

to their respective access and

interexchange categories during 1996

and then calculate the amount of such

costs that would have been allocated to

those categories during that year if the

rule changes adopted in the Third

Report and Order had been in effect at

that time. Once that difference is

determined, each affected price cap LEC

is required to make an exogenous

adjustment to its PCIs and related basket

indices to prevent the earlier

misallocation of these costs from

continuing to inflate the rates charges

for regulated services. Separate from the

possible tariff filing burden described

below, we estimate that it would take

each of these price cap LECs four hours

to complete the steps necessary to

determine the amount of the exogenous

price cap index (PCI) and related basket

adjustments required by the Third

Report and Order. Because we assume

this particular burden applies to all 14

price cap LECs, we estimate the total

burden to be 56 hours. Under the Third

Report and Order, affected price cap

LECs are required to make tariff revision

filings on or before December 17, 1997,

to implement these exogenous price cap

adjustments. Because most of these 14

price cap LECs have not yet made such

filings, there should be little or no

additional tariff filing burden associated

with these LECs’ compliance with the

Third Report and Order. For the four

price cap LECs that have already made

access reform tariff filings under other

orders, we estimate that there will be an

additional tariff filing burden of 1272

hours for these LECs as a group.

Incremental burden associated with the

Third Report and Order in this

proceeding is as follows: No. of

respondents: 14; hours per response:

94.8; total annual burden: 1328.

Obligation to respond: Mandatory. Public reporting burden for the

collections of information is as noted

above. Send comments regarding the

burden estimate or any other aspect of

the collections of information, including

suggestions for reducing the burden to

Performance Evaluation and Records

Management, Washington, D.C. 20554.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–33044 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Alternative Dispute Resolution

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Policy statement.

SUMMARY: The FDIC has adopted a

Statement of Policy to further its

commitment to the use of Alternative

Dispute Resolution for resolving

appropriate disputes in a timely and

cost efficient manner and to comply

with the spirit of the Administrative

Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, Pub. L.

104–320.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James D. Hudson, Counsel (202) 736–

0581, Legal Division, Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board

of Directors of the FDIC has adopted a

Statement of Policy on Alternative

Dispute Resolution. The text of the

Policy Statement follows:

Statement of Policy on Alternative

Dispute Resolution

The Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC) has been and

continues to be committed to the use of

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

for resolving appropriate disputes in a

more timely, less costly manner than

litigation or administrative adjudication.

The FDIC hereby adopts this policy to

reiterate its commitment to ADR, to

express its full support for ADR and to

set forth a framework for the continuing

and expanding use of ADR. The

Corporation views ADR not as an end in

itself, but rather, as an additional tool to

accomplish its business efficiently,

economically and productively. To that

end, the FDIC believes that its ADR

policy should be dynamic and

continually developing.

The FDIC fully supports the costeffective use of ADR, including

negotiation, mediation, early neutral

evaluation, neutral expert fact-finding,

mini-trials and other hybrid forms of

ADR in appropriate instances. The

purpose of this policy is to use ADR in

appropriate instances to resolve

disputes at the earliest stage possible, by

the fastest and least expensive method

possible and at the lowest possible

organizational level consistent with

applicable delegations of authority.

The Deputy General Counsel for

Corporate Operations (or his/her

designee) serves as the Dispute

Resolution Specialist for the

Corporation. In addition, an ADR

Steering Committee, composed of the

Dispute Resolution Specialist (or his/her

designee) and representatives from each

Division and Office, was established by

the Board of Directors in 1994 to

coordinate and encourage appropriate