Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Notices 751

Total Annual Burden: 141 hours.

Needs and Uses: Collection of

information complies with creation of

regulatory symmetry among similar

mobile services. The information is

necessary to ensure that commercial

mobile radio service is made available

to the public at reasonable rates and on

resonable terms in a competitive

marketplace. The information is used by

Commission staff in carrying out its

duties under the Communications Act.

This collection is being revised to

eliminate a one-time collection

requirement and a collection

requirement that must have been filed

by August 10, 1994.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–96 Filed 1–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

Notice of Public Information

Collections Submitted to OMB for

Review and Approval

December 27, 1996.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications,

as part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burden invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on the

following proposed and/or continuing

information collections, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid control number. No

person shall be subject to any penalty

for failing to comply with a collection

of information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) that does not

display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (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 Commissions

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.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before February 5, 1997.

If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to

Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications, Room 234, 1919 M

St., N.W., Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to dconway@fcc.gov and

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB 725 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or

fainlt@a1.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217 or via internet

at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval No.: 3060–0710.

Title: Policy and Rules Concerning the

Implementation of the Local

Competition Provisions in the

Telecommunications Act of 1996—CC

Docket 96–98 First Report and Order.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for

profit; State, Local and Tribal

Governments.

Number of and Estimated Time for

Response are as follows:

Type of information submitted Responses Time per response Total burden

a. Submission of Information Necessary to Reach Agreement ................................... 255 100 hours ................ 25,500 hours.

b1. Submission of Agreements to the State Commission (new) ................................. 255 1 hour ...................... 255 hours.

b2. Submission of Agreements to the State Commission (pre-existing Class A) ........ 80 1 hour ...................... 80 hours.

b3. Submission of Agreements to the State Commission (Non Class A) .................... 500 1 hour ...................... 500 hours.

c. Burden of Proof Regarding Interconnection and Access to Unbundled Network

Elements.

1,000 25 hours .................. 25,000 hours.

d. Collocation ................................................................................................................ 1,000 25 hours .................. 25,000 hours.

e. Notification of the State Commission ....................................................................... 30 1 hour ...................... 30 hours.

f. Rural and Small Carriers ........................................................................................... 500 10 hours .................. 5,000 hours.

g1. Pole Attachment Modifications ............................................................................... 1,050,000 30 minutes .............. 525,000 hours.

g2. Maintaince Modification Notifications ..................................................................... 12,250 30 minutes .............. 6,125 hours.

h1. Pole Attachment Requests ..................................................................................... 2,500 1 hour ...................... 2,500 hours.

h2. Pole Attachment Denials ........................................................................................ 250 3 hours .................... 750 hours.

i1. Dispute Resolution Complainants ............................................................................ 250 4–25 hours .............. 7,250 hours.

j. Economic Cost Studies to Determine Rates for Interconnection .............................. 100 1,440 hours ............. 144,000 hours.

k. Cost Studies on Avoidable Costs to Determine Resale Discounts .......................... 200 480 hours ................ 96,000 hours.

l. Economic Cost Studies to Determine Reciprocal Rates ........................................... 100 1,440 hours ............. 144,000 hours.

m. Measurement of Traffic ............................................................................................ 550 700 hours ................ 385,000 hours.

n. File Required for Arbitration ..................................................................................... 200 4 hours .................... 800 hours.

o. Determination of Rates for Interconnection . . . State Commission Review .......... 50 2,160 hours ............. 108,000 hours.

p. Determination of Resale Discount Percentage . . . State Commission Review .... 50 640 hours ................ 32,000 hours.

q. Petition for Incumbent LEC Status ........................................................................... 30 1 hour ...................... 30 hours.

r. Use of Proxies by State . . . Articulating Reasons for Choice ................................ 50 120 hours ................ 6,000 hours.

s. Preparation of Forward-looking Economic Cost Studies to Establish Rates for

Transport.

50 720 hours ................ 36,000 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 1,574,820

hours.

Needs and Uses: CC Docket 96–98,

First Report and Order, the Commission

adopts rules and regulations to

implement parts of the Sections 251 and

252 that affect local competition.

Specifically, the Order required

incumbent local exchange carrier

(LEC’s) to offer interconnection,

unbundled network elements, transport

and termination, and wholesale rates for

retail services to new entrants; that

incumbent LECs’ price such services at

rates that are cost based and just and

reasonable; and that they provide access

to rights-of way as well as establish

reciprocal compensation arrangements

for the transport and termination of

telecommunications traffic.
752 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Notices

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–97 Filed 1–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Uniform Financial Institutions Rating

System

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of adoption of policy

statement.

SUMMARY: The Board of Directors of the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(FDIC) (Board) has considered the

proposed revisions to the Uniform

Financial Institutions Rating System

(UFIRS) as approved by the Federal

Financial Institutions Examination

Council (FFIEC) on December 9, 1996.

On December 20, 1996, the Board

adopted the updated UFIRS as a policy

statement of the FDIC and rescinded the

1979 statement of policy published in

the FDIC’s regulatory service (FDIC Law,

Regulations and Related Acts) at page

5079.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel M. Gautsch, Examination

Specialist, (202) 898–6912, Office of

Policy, Division of Supervision. For

legal issues, Linda L. Stamp, Counsel,

(202) 898–7310, Supervision and

Legislation Branch, Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street

NW, Washington, D.C. 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC

is a Federal financial institutions

regulatory agency under the Federal

Financial Institutions Examination

Council Act of 1978. The FFIEC adopted

an updated UFIRS after a notice and

request for comment was published in

the Federal Register on July 18, 1996 at

61 FR 37472. On December 9, 1996, the

Task Force on Supervision of the FFIEC

approved under delegated authority the

updated UFIRS to update the rating

system to address changes in the

financial services industry and in

supervisory policies and procedures

occurring since the rating system was

adopted in 1979.

Section 303(a)(2) of the Riegle

Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12

U.S.C. 4803(a)) (Riegle Act) provides

that the FDIC shall, consistent with the

principles of safety and soundness,

statutory law and policy, and the public

interest, work jointly to make uniform

all regulations and guidelines

implementing common statutory or

supervisory policies. Section 303(a)(1)

of the Riegle Act requires the FDIC to

review its own regulations and written

policies and to streamline those

regulations and policies where possible.

To fulfill the section 303 mandate, the

FDIC has been reviewing on an

interagency basis and internally, its

regulations and written policies to

identify those areas where streamlining

or updating is appropriate. As a result

of those reviews, the FDIC is adopting

the updated UFIRS effective for

examination commenced on or after

January 1, 1997.

The text of the policy statement

follows:

Uniform Financial Institutions Rating

System

Introduction

The Uniform Financial Institutions

Rating System (UFIRS) was adopted by

the Federal Financial Institutions

Examination Council (FFIEC) on

November 13, 1979. Over the years, the

UFIRS has proven to be an effective

internal supervisory tool for evaluating

the soundness of financial institutions

on a uniform basis and for identifying

those institutions requiring special

attention or concern. A number of

changes, however, have occurred in the

banking industry and in the Federal

supervisory agencies’ policies and

procedures which have prompted a

review and revision of the 1979 rating

system. The revisions to UFIRS include

the addition of a sixth component

addressing sensitivity to market risks,

the explicit reference to the quality of

risk management processes in the

management component, and the

identification of risk elements within

the composite and component rating

descriptions.

The revisions to UFIRS are not

intended to add to the regulatory burden

of institutions or require additional

policies or processes. The revisions are

intended to promote and complement

efficient examination processes. The

revisions have been made to update the

rating system, while retaining the basic

framework of the original rating system.

The UFIRS takes into consideration

certain financial, managerial, and

compliance factors that are common to

all institutions. Under this system, the

supervisory agencies endeavor to ensure

that all financial institutions are

evaluated in a comprehensive and

uniform manner, and that supervisory

attention is appropriately focused on the

financial institutions exhibiting

financial and operational weaknesses or

adverse trends.

The UFIRS also serves as a useful

vehicle for identifying problem or

deteriorating financial institutions, as

well as for categorizing institutions with

deficiencies in particular component

areas. Further, the rating system assists

Congress in following safety and

soundness trends and in assessing the

aggregate strength and soundness of the

financial industry. As such, the UFIRS

assists the agencies in fulfilling their

collective mission of maintaining

stability and public confidence in the

nation’s financial system.

Overview

Under the UFIRS, each financial

institution is assigned a composite

rating based on an evaluation and rating

of six essential components of an

institution’s financial condition and

operations. These component factors

address the adequacy of capital, the

quality of assets, the capability of

management, the quality and level of

earnings, the adequacy of liquidity, and

the sensitivity to market risk.

Evaluations of the components take into

consideration the institution’s size and

sophistication, the nature and

complexity of its activities, and its risk

profile.

Composite and component ratings are

assigned based on a 1 to 5 numerical

scale. A 1 indicates the highest rating,

strongest performance and risk

management practices, and least degree

of supervisory concern, while a 5

indicates the lowest rating, weakest

performance, inadequate risk

management practices and, therefore,

the highest degree of supervisory

concern.

The composite rating generally bears

a close relationship to the component

ratings assigned. However, the

composite rating is not derived by

computing an arithmetic average of the

component ratings. Each component

rating is based on a qualitative analysis

of the factors comprising that

component and its interrelationship

with the other components. When

assigning a composite rating, some

components may be given more weight

than others depending on the situation

at the institution. In general, assignment

of a composite rating may incorporate

any factor that bears significantly on the

overall condition and soundness of the

financial institution. Assigned

composite and component ratings are

disclosed to the institution’s board of

directors and senior management.

The ability of management to respond

to changing circumstances and to

address the risks that may arise from