Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29735

release into ‘‘spare’’ status 888 vanity

numbers that were set aside for subscribers

holding corresponding 800 numbers. Your

letter dated April 10, 1998, indicates that the

90-day schedule does not allow sufficient

time for DSMI to process and verify RespOrg

reports of subscriber requests for these

numbers. The Bureau in this letter now

extends the time for subscribers to request

numbers that were set aside for them, for

RespOrgs to report subscriber requests to

DSMI, and for DSMI to process and verify

RespOrg reports as they come in. It also

directs DSMI to take several other actions,

which are intended to ensure: (1) That all

subscriber requests to retain their set-aside

numbers are promptly assigned and activated

as ‘‘working’’; (2) that no subscriber requests

get rejected for being submitted late; and (3)

that all set-aside numbers for which

subscribers did not respond in writing are

placed in ‘‘unavailable’’ status rather than

‘‘spare’’ status, while the Commission audits

them to ensure that subscribers received

adequate notice from the RespOrgs.

Under the current 90-day schedule,

RespOrgs were required in the first 20 days,

which ended April 25, 1998, to notify their

subscribers that they may choose to reserve

their set-aside numbers. In the next 30 days,

subscribers must submit written requests to

the RespOrgs in order to retain their

numbers, and they are permitted to submit

written requests to release the numbers as

‘‘spare.’’ In the following 30 days, RespOrgs

must report the subscribers’’ requests to

DSMI, with documentation of each

subscriber’s request or certification that the

subscriber did not respond. In the last 10

days, DSMI must complete processing the

requests.

The Bureau is concerned that erroneously

releasing a number into ‘‘spare’’ status

contrary to a subscriber’s intent would not be

a correctable error if the number then

becomes ‘‘reserved,’’ ‘‘assigned,’’ or activated

as ‘‘working’’ for the account of another

subscriber. (Erroneously assigning and

activating a subscriber’s set-aside number as

‘‘working’’ would presumably be correctable,

by placing it in the proper status and

ensuring that the subscriber is not charged

for it.) It is therefore imperative to verify, for

each number that a RespOrg certifies the

subscriber did not respond, that the

subscriber received adequate notice of right

of first refusal from the RespOrg before

releasing the number into ‘‘spare’’ status.

Other potential problems, in addition to

inadequate notice, could also necessitate

additional time for processing or for

correction and re-processing. Among these

may be, for example, failure by subscribers to

mail their requests to RespOrgs or to mail

them by May 24, 1998, or mishandling of

written subscriber requests by RespOrgs or

their agents, or failure or inability of

RespOrgs or their agents to report subscriber

requests correctly to DSMI. Compounding or

contributing to these possibilities, other

events might transpire during or after the 90-

day period—for example, a subscriber might

change RespOrgs, an 800 number might be

disconnected or suspended, or an 888

number that is returned to RespOrg control

for activation as ‘‘working’’ might instead be

placed in ‘‘reserved’’ status (and 45 days later

automatically moved to ‘‘spare’’ status if the

subscriber fails to submit a further request to

activate).

In light of these concerns, the Bureau

modifies the process for handling the 888

numbers that were set aside for subscribers

holding corresponding 800 numbers, as

follows.

1. Written subscriber requests received

from RespOrgs by August 21, 1998—

Processed by DSMI by September 10, 1998—

Activated by September 30, 1998. The Bureau

directs DSMI to instruct the RespOrgs that

additional time is allotted, until August 21,

1998, for RespOrgs to complete notifying

subscribers of their right of first refusal, for

subscribers to respond to the RespOrgs’

notification in writing, and for RespOrgs to

report all results to DSMI (with

documentation of written subscriber requests

and certification of all other results). The

Bureau also directs DSMI to instruct the

RespOrgs that they may set target dates for

subscriber responses, consistent with this

time schedule. The Bureau further directs

DSMI that, for all 888 number requests that

are reported to DSMI and received from

RespOrgs by August 21, 1998, and that are

documented by written subscriber requests

(rather than by RespOrg certification of other

results), DSMI will have an additional 20

days for processing those written subscriber

requests, until September 10, 1998. In that

time, DSMI must complete all processing,

place into ‘‘spare’’ status all numbers to be

released, place into ‘‘assigned’’ status all

numbers that subscribers wish to retain,

transfer to the RespOrgs control of numbers

that are to be activated as ‘‘working,’’ and

instruct the RespOrgs to complete activation

of those numbers as ‘‘working’’ within 20

days thereafter, no later than September 30,

1998.

2. Late-filed written requests—

Acceptance—Requests to reserve. The Bureau

directs DSMI to instruct the RespOrgs that

they may not reject written requests from

subscribers received after August 21, 1998,

and that they must submit to DSMI, on an

ongoing basis, all written requests with

accompanying documentation as they come

in from subscribers no later than 30 days

after receiving them. The Bureau instructs

DSMI to process all such requests within 20

days of receiving them, and, upon

completion of processing, place into ‘‘spare’’

status all numbers requested to be released,

place into ‘‘assigned’’ status all numbers that

subscribers wish to retain, transfer to the

RespOrgs control of numbers that are to be

activated as ‘‘working,’’ and instruct the

RespOrgs to complete activation of those

numbers as ‘‘working’’ within 20 days

thereafter. The Bureau permits DSMI to

request more than 20 days to process latefiled requests, if DSMI’s request is due to a

reduction in DSMI’s work force needed to

comply with this letter.

3. ‘‘No response’’ numbers—‘‘Unavailable’’

status—Commission audit. The Bureau

directs DSMI to retain in ‘‘unavailable’’ status

those set-aside 888 numbers for which

subscribers did not respond, and not to

release those numbers into the general pool

as ‘‘spare’’ unless and until the Commission

informs DSMI otherwise. The Bureau also

directs DSMI to instruct the RespOrgs that,

for DSMI to verify documentation, each

certification of no subscriber response that a

RespOrg submits to DSMI must include

subscriber contact information, containing at

least the name, address, and phone number

of the subscriber and the date and means by

which the RespOrg notified the subscriber of

the right of first refusal. The Bureau further

directs DSMI to inform the RespOrgs that,

after September 10, 1998, the Commission

will audit those numbers and the

documentation with which the RespOrgs

certify that subscribers did not respond in

writing, to ensure that the subscribers

received adequate notice from the RespOrgs

of their right of first refusal.

Following completion of the process

directed in this letter, the time for subscribers

to exercise their rights of first refusal will

come to an end when the Bureau directs

DSMI to release the remaining ‘‘unavailable’’

set-aside 888 numbers into ‘‘spare’’ status.

Sincerely,

Geraldine A. Matise,

Chief, Network Services Division.

[FR Doc. 98–14378 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[Report No. 2279]

Petitions For Reconsideration and

Clarification of Action in Rulemaking

Proceeding

May 22, 1998.

Petitions for reconsideration and

clarification have been filed in the

Commission’s rulemaking proceedings

listed in this Public Notice and

published pursuant to 47 CFR Section

1.429(e). The full text of these

documents are available for viewing and

copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street,

NW., Washington, DC or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857–3800.

Oppositions to these petitions must be

filed June 16, 1998. See Section 1.4(b)(1)

of the Commission’s rule (47 CFR

1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must

be filed within 10 days after the time for

filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Amendment of Section

73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM

Broadcast Stations, (Banks, Redmond,

Sunriver and Corvallis, Oregon) (MM

Docket No. 96–7, RM–8732, RM–8845).

Amendment of Section 73.202(b),

Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast

Stations, The Dallas and Corvallis,

Oregon) (MM Docket No. 96–12, RM–

8741).

Madgekal Broadcasting, Inc. Station

KFLY(FM), Corvallis, Oregon.

For Construction Permit to Modify

Licensed Facilities (One-Step Upgrade).
29736 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices

Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–14375 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied to the Board for approval,

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part

225), and all other applicable statutes

and regulations to become a bank

holding company and/or to acquire the

assets or the ownership of, control of, or

the power to vote shares of a bank or

bank holding company and all of the

banks and nonbanking companies

owned by the bank holding company,

including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well

as other related filings required by the

Board, are available for immediate

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank

indicated. The application also will be

available for inspection at the offices of

the Board of Governors. Interested

persons may express their views in

writing on the standards enumerated in

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

proposal also involves the acquisition of

a nonbanking company, the review also

includes whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company complies with the

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking

activities will be conducted throughout

the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than June 17, 1998.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

(Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 104

Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia

30303-2713:

1. Compass Bancshares, Inc.,

Birmingham, Alabama; Compass Banks

of Texas, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama;

and Compass Bancorporation of Texas,

Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; to acquire

100 percent of the voting shares of Hill

Country Bank, Austin, Texas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, May 27, 1998.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 98–14441 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 961–0005]

Institutional Pharmacy Network, et al.;

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this

matter settles alleged violations of

federal law prohibiting unfair or

deceptive acts or practices or unfair

methods of competition. The attached

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes both the allegations in the

draft complaint that accompanies the

consent agreement and the terms of the

consent order—embodied in the consent

agreement—that would settle these

allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Baer or Willard Tom, FTC/H–

374, Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326–

2032 or 326–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.

46 and Section 2.34 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice

is hereby given that the above-captioned

consent agreement containing a consent

order to cease and desist, having been

filed with and accepted, subject to final

approval, by the Commission, has been

placed on the public record for a period

of sixty (60) days. The following

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes the terms of the consent

agreement, and the allegations in the

complaint. An electronic copy of the

full text of the consent agreement

package can be obtained from the FTC

Home Page (for May 21, 1998), on the

World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://

www.ftc.gov/os/actions97.htm.’’ A

paper copy can be obtained from the

FTC Public Reference Room, Room H–

130, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580,

either in person or by calling (202) 326–

3627. Public comment is invited. Such

comments or views will be considered

by the Commission and will be available

for inspection and copying at its

principal office in accordance with

Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To

Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission has

accepted, subject to final approval, an

agreement to a proposed consent order

from Institutional Pharmacy Network

(IPN) and its five members: Evergreen

Pharmaceutical, Inc.; NCS Healthcare of

Oregon, Inc.; NCS Healthcare of

Washington, Inc.; United Professional

Companies, Inc.; and White, Mack and

Wart, Inc.

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for sixty

(60) days for reception of comments by

interested persons. Comments received

during this period will become part of

the public record. After sixty (60) days,

the Commission will again review the

agreement and the comments received

and will decide whether it should

withdraw from the agreement or make

final the agreement’s proposed order.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed order, and it is not intended

to constitute an official interpretation of

the agreement and proposed order or to

modify in any way their terms. The

proposed consent order has been

entered into for settlement purposes

only and does not constitute an

admission by any proposed respondent

that the law has been violated as alleged

in the complaint.

Description of the Draft Complaint

A complaint that the Commission

prepared for issuance along with the

proposed order alleges the following:

Evergreen Pharmaceutical, Inc.; NCS

Healthcare of Oregon, Inc.; NCS

Healthcare of Washington, Inc.; United

Professional Companies, Inc.; and

White, Mack and Wart, Inc., are

institutional pharmacies that compete to

serve institutional care facilities, such as

nursing homes. Institutional pharmacies

provide specialized services, including

providing medications in single dose

packages, maintaining an ‘‘emergency

box’’ at the client facility with drugs for

use in emergency situations, and

providing consulting and quality

assurance services to institutional care

facilities. The institutional pharmacy/

respondents together provide pharmacy

services for approximately 80 percent of

the patients that receive institutional

pharmacy services in Oregon.

The State of Oregon created the

Oregon Health Plan (‘‘OHP’’) in 1994 to

provide health care to Medicaid

recipients and other needy Oregonians.

Under OHP, the state contracts with

Fully Capitated Health Plans (‘‘Plans’’),

which are managed care organizations

that receive a fixed payment to care for