36688 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Released:

June 30, 1998.

The next meeting of the North

American Numbering Council (NANC)

will be held on Wednesday, July 22,

1998, from 8:30 a.m., until 5:00 p.m.,

and on Thursday, July 23, 1998, from

8:30 a.m., until 12 noon at the Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, NW, Room 856, Washington, DC.

This meeting will be open to members

of the general public. The FCC will

attempt to accommodate as many

people as possible. Admittance,

however will be limited to the seating

available. The public may submit

written statements to the NANC, which

must be received two business days

before the meeting. In addition, oral

statements at the meeting by parties or

entities not represented on the NANC

will be permitted to the extent time

permits. Such statements will be limited

to five minutes in length by any one

party or entity, and requests to make an

oral statement must be received two

business days before each meeting.

Requests to make an oral statement or

provide written comments to the NANC

should be sent to Linda Simms at the

address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, stated above.

Proposed Agenda

The planned agenda for the July 22–

23, meeting is as follows:

1. Approval of meeting minutes.

2. Local Number Portability

Administration (LNPA) Working Group

Report. Report out on estimate of times

to complete preport (PP) with efficient

data representation (EDR), and port on

demand (POD) architectures.

3. N11 Ad Hoc Working Group Report

and Recommendation. Responsibilities

under First Report and Order and

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

In the Matter of Use of N11 Codes and

Other Abbreviated Dialing

Arrangements, CC Docket 92–105, FCC

97–51.

4. Numbering Resource Optimization

Working Group Report. Discussion and

review status of telephone number

reservation recommendation.

5. Industry Numbering Committee

Report. Tutorial on service provider

inventory and industry inventory

intervals; including service provider

request date to the pooling

administrator; pooling administrator

allocation date and actual effective date

for a block to be put into service.

6. Cost Recovery Working Group

Report.

7. COCUS and Proposed Line Number

Utilization Survey. Discussion and

review of contributions on question of

complete, timely and accurate data

reporting; obtaining forecasts from

resellers, and the issue of audits.

8. North American Numbering Plan

Administration (NANPA) report on

statement of work for net costs

associated with extension to 1000s

block number pooling administration.

Federal Communications Commission.

Geraldine A. Matise,

Chief, Network Services Division, Common

Carrier Bureau.

[FR Doc. 98–17976 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[DA 98–1239]

Notice of Publix Network Corporation’s

Telecommunications Relay Services

(TRS) Certification; CC Docket No. 90–

571 and NSD-L–98–65

Released: June 30, 1998.

Notice is hereby given that the

application for certification of the

Publix Network Corporation’s Interstate

Telecommunication Relay Services

(TRS) program has been granted, subject

to the condition described below,

pursuant to Title IV of the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990, 47 U.S.C.

225(f)(2), and section 64.605(b) of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 64.605(b).

On the basis of Publix Network

Corporation’s application, the

Commission has determined that:

(1) The TRS program of Publix

Network Corporation meets or exceeds

all operational, technical, and

functional minimum standards

contained in section 64.604 the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 64.604;

(2) The TRS program of Publix

Network Corporation makes available

adequate procedures and remedies for

enforcing the requirements of the

program; and,

(3) the TRS program of Publix

Network Corporation in no way

conflicts with federal law.

On May 14, 1998, the Commission

adopted a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking that proposes ways to

enhance the quality of existing

telecommunications relay services

(TRS) and expand those services for

better use by individuals with speech

disabilities. See Telecommunications

Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech

Services for Individuals with Hearing

and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No.

98–67, FCC 98–90 (rel. May 20, 1998).

Because the Commission may adopt

changes to the rules governing relay

programs, including state relay

programs, the certification granted

herein is conditioned on a

demonstration of compliance with any

new rules ultimately adopted by the

Commission. The Commission will

provide guidance to the states on

demonstrating compliance with such

rule changes.

This certification, as conditioned

herein, is effective immediately and

shall remain in effect until July 25,

2003. One year prior to the expiration of

this certification, July 25, 2002, Publix

Network Corporation may apply for

renewal of their TRS program

certification by filing documentation in

accordance with the Commission’s

rules, pursuant to 47 CFR 64.605(a) and

(b).

A copy of the certification letter is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Common Carrier Bureau,

Network Services Division, Room 235,

2000 M Street, NW, Washington, DC,

Monday through Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to

3:00 p.m. (closed 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.) and

the FCC Reference Center, Room 239,

1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC,

daily, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m..

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al

McCloud, (202) 418–2499,

amccloud@fcc.gov; Helene Nankin,

(202) 418–1466, hnankin@fcc.gov; or

Kris Monteith, (202) 418–1098,

kmonteit@fcc.gov, (TTY, 202–418–

0484), at the Network Services Division,

Common Carrier Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission.

Federal Communications Commission.

Geraldine A. Matise,

Chief, Network Services Division, Common

Carrier Bureau.

[FR Doc. 98–17925 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[CS Docket No. 98–102, FCC 98–137]

Annual Assessment of the Status of

Competition in Markets for the Delivery

of Video Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

SUMMARY: The Commission is required

to report annually to Congress on the

status of competition in markets for the

delivery of video programming. On June

23, 1998, the Commission adopted a

Notice of Inquiry to solicit information

from the public for use in preparing the

competition report that is to be

submitted to Congress in December

1998. The Notice of Inquiry will provide

parties with an opportunity to submit
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices 36689

comments and information to be used in

conjunction with publicly available

information and filings submitted in

relevant Commission proceedings to

assess the extent of competition in the

market for the delivery of video

programming.

DATES: Comments are due by July 31,

1998, and reply comments are due by

August 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Room 222, Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marcia Glauberman, Cable Services

Bureau, (202) 418–7200 or TTY (202)

418–7172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Inquiry in CS Docket No. 98–102, FCC

98–137, adopted June 23, 1998, and

released June 26, 1998. The complete

text of this Notice of Inquiry is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20554, and

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service

(‘‘ITS, Inc.’’), (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of the Notice of Inquiry

1. Section 628(g) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended (‘‘Communications Act’’), 47

U.S.C. 548(g), requires the Commission

to deliver an annual report to Congress

on the status of competition in markets

for the delivery of video programming.

The Notice of Inquiry (‘‘NOI’’) is

designed to assist the Commission in

gathering the information, data and

public comment necessary to prepare its

fifth annual report on competition in

markets for the delivery of video

programming (‘‘1998 Competition

Report’’). The Commission expects to

use the information submitted by

commenters to supplement publicly

available information and relevant

comments that have been filed in other

Commission proceedings.

2. For the 1998 Competition Report,

we request information and comment

regarding the cable industry, existing

and potential competitors in markets for

the delivery of video programming, and

the prospects for increasing competition

in these markets. We seek information

to update our assessment of the status

of competition and on changes in the

competitive environment since our 1997

Competition Report, summarized at 63

FR 10222 (March 2, 1998), was

submitted to Congress. Commenters also

are invited to identify and comment on

existing statutory provisions and

Commission regulations they perceive

as restraining competition or inhibiting

development of robust competition in

markets for the delivery of video

programming. We note that, pursuant to

section 623(c)(4) of the Communications

Act, the Commission’s authority under

section 623(c)(3) to review complaints

submitted by local franchising

authorities concerning increases in rates

for cable programming service (‘‘CPS’’)

tiers sunsets on March 31, 1999. See 47

U.S.C. 543(c)(3) and (c)(4). The

information gathered in this report will

present the last comprehensive picture

of the state of cable competition prior to

the sunset date. For this year’s report, to

the extent feasible, we ask parties to

submit data and information that are

current as June 30, 1998.

3. As in previous reports, we seek

factual information and statistical data

regarding the status of video

programming distributors using

different technologies, and changes that

have occurred in the past year. We ask

for information on multichannel video

programming distributors (‘‘MPVDs’’)

using predominantly wired distribution

technologies, including cable systems,

private cable or satellite master antenna

television (‘‘SMATV’’) systems, and

open video systems (‘‘OVS’’). We also

request data for those relying

predominantly on wireless distribution

technologies, such as over-the-air

broadcast television, multichannel

multipoint distribution service

(‘‘MMDS’’), instructional television

fixed service (‘‘ITFS’’), local multipoint

distribution service (‘‘LMDS’’), direct

broadcast satellite (‘‘DBS’’) service, and

home satellite dish (‘‘HSD’’) service.

4. In addition to statistical data on

each of these delivery services, we seek

information regarding: (a) the number of

homes passed (for wired technologies)

and the number of homes capable of

receiving service (for wireless

technologies); (b) the number of

operators; (c) the identities of the ten

largest operators (national market only);

(d) the number of subscribers and

penetration rates; (e) channel capacities

and the number and types of channels

offered; and (f) the number and types of

services offered. In addition, we request

financial information for each

technology, including firm and industry

revenues, in the aggregate and by

sources (e.g., subscriber revenues,

advertising revenues, programming

revenues); cash flow; changes in stock

prices; investments; capital acquisition;

and capital expenditures.

5. For each video programming

distribution technology, we also request

information describing: (a) technological

advances (e.g., deployment of digital

services) that make or may make the

technology competitive; (b) the effort

(including steps, costs and time) needed

to increase the number of homes passed

or capable of receiving service; (c) the

effort (including steps, costs and time)

needed to increase the number of

channels and types of services offered;

and (d) regulatory and judicial

developments that affect the use of

different technologies. In addition, in

evaluating the extent of competition

among various MVPDs’ services or

technologies, we seek information and

analysis on the degree to which viewers

or consumers consider the different

types of MVPDs to be substitutes and on

the extent to which customers have

switched from one provider or

technology to another one.

6. In the NOI, we request information

on interservice competition and service

to multiple dwelling unit (‘‘MDU’’)

buildings. We further seek information

that will allow us to compare the cost

to consumers of subscriptions to, and

equipment needed to receive,

alternative MVPD services (cable, DBS,

MMDS, SMATV, or OVS) and to permit

us to better understand the factors

considered by consumers when

choosing among alternative MVPDs.

Further, we seek comment on the

appropriate method for comparing the

services and costs of different MVPDs.

7. As in prior reports, we will provide

updated information in the 1998

Competition Report on the structure of,

and rivalry in, markets for the delivery

of video programming. To evaluate

market concentration at the local,

regional and national levels, we ask

commenters to provide updated

information on industry transactions,

including information on mergers,

acquisitions, consolidations, swaps and

trades, cross-ownership, and other

structural developments that affect

distributors’ delivery of video

programming. In local markets where

incumbent cable operators face

competition from one or more other

video programming distributors, we

seek information on: (a) the identity of

the competitors; (b) the distribution

technology used by each competitor; (c)

the date that each competitor entered

the market; (d) the location of the

market, including whether it is

predominantly urban or rural; (e) an

estimate of the subscribership and

market share for the services of each

competitor; (f) a description of the

service offerings of each competitor; (g)

differentiation strategies each

competitor is pursuing; and (h) the

prices charged for the service offerings.
36690 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices

8. With respect to regional

concentration (i.e., ‘‘clustering’’), for

cable and other MVPDs, we seek

information on the geographic areas

served by particular companies and

comment regarding the effects industry

consolidation and clustering have had

on competition. We also seek data

regarding current national

subscribership levels of all MVPDs,

changes in these levels since the 1997

Competition Report, and the reasons for

these changes, including whether such

changes are the result of merger and

acquisition activity, marketing

strategies, or other factors. We also

would like to evaluate MVPD service

providers in the economic context of the

larger communications marketplace

based on their relative size and

resources (e.g., revenues) and the extent

to which participants have the ability to

enter each others’ market.

9. In the 1998 Competition Report, we

will update information on existing and

planned programming services, with

particular focus on those programming

services that are affiliated with video

programming distributors. We seek

information and ask a variety of

questions on programming services that

are affiliated with cable operators,

affiliated with non-cable video

programming distributors and

unaffiliated with any MVPD.

10. For this year’s report, we also

request information on the various

program options offered by each MVPD

technology, including exclusive

program offerings, the number of

channels available, and the

comparability of the program options

and packages available with each

technology. We ask whether there are

certain programming services or specific

classes of service that an MVPD needs

to provide to subscribers in order to be

successful. We request information

regarding the extent that local cable

operators or broadcasters are providing

local or regional news or sports

channels. In addition, we solicit

information on the extent to which

MVPDs offer or plan to offer electronic

programming guides. We also seek

information on the extent to which

MVPDs are now offering or plan to offer

consumers discrete programming

choices (i.e., service on an ‘‘a la carte’’

or individual channel basis) rather than

programming service packages (i.e., tiers

of programming services) and the

technical feasibility of offering

programming in a customized manner.

Moreover, we seek information and

comment regarding public, educational

and governmental (‘‘PEG’’) access and

leased access channels.

11. We further seek information and

analysis regarding the effect of increased

programming costs on rates, especially

for cable service. We request

information and comment on the factors

that affect programming costs for cable

operators and other MVPDs. We also ask

about the extent to which the increased

programming costs are passed through

to MVPD subscribers and to advertisers.

12. As in previous reports, we will

update our assessment of our program

access, program carriage and channel

occupancy rules. Commenters are asked

to provide information regarding the

effectiveness of these rules. We request

information on whether the coverage of

the program access rules is appropriate,

on whether there have been any cases of

MVPDs being denied programming

when a satellite delivered service

becomes terrestrially delivered or by

non-vertically integrated programmers,

and on any other issues of concern

relating to the availability and

distribution of programming.

13. We seek updated information on

various technological advances that may

affect industry structure and

competition in markets for the delivery

of video programming, including system

upgrades and the deployment of digital

technology. We ask whether upgrades

are being undertaken only in specific

geographic areas and whether they are

conducted mainly in response to

competitive entry. We seek information

on the feasibility of combining

distribution technologies (e.g., DBS and

SMATV) and data regarding MVPDs’

current use of combined distribution

technologies. We also solicit data on

estimated roll-out or launch dates for

new technologies. In addition, we note

that an important aspect of the

technological developments taking

place relates to the deployment of set

top boxes, integrated receiver/decoders,

or receivers that facilitate or

differentiate MVPD service offering. We

ask commenters to identify and describe

each type of device, including its

function and capabilities, its costs and

availability to consumers.

14. Currently, basic and cable

programming service rates are

deregulated where a cable operator faces

‘‘effective competition’’ as defined in

the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.

543(l). We seek comment on whether

the existing test for effective

competition is an appropriate

measurement of the existence of

competition. Where commenters believe

it is not the correct measure of

competition, all or in part, we ask for

suggested alternative means for

determining competition.

15. In the last two reports, we

examined several case studies of local

markets where cable operators faced

actual competition from MVPD entrants.

We seek updated information on the

effects of actual and potential

competition in these and other local

markets where consumers have, or soon

will have, a choice among MVPDs,

including specific data regarding areas

where head-to-head competition exists

between cable and other MVPDs, or

among various types of MVPDs, and

information on how such competition

has affected prices, service offerings,

quality of service, and other relevant

factors.

16. We also would like to gather

information on video delivery

competition for and within MDUs. We

request information on how common is

it for consumers to have options to

choose between or among MVPD

services within a particular MDU and

how program offerings and prices

charged by competing MVPDs serving

MDUs compare. We solicit information

on how many exclusive service

contracts, and how many so-called

‘‘perpetual’’ exclusive contracts, exist in

MDUs at present and whether their use

is increasing or decreasing. We request

comment on the impact that the recent

inside wiring, over-the-air reception

device (‘‘OTARD’’), and cable bulk rate

rules have had on MDU competition.

17. Finally, we request information

regarding existing or potential

regulatory impediments that may deter

entry or prevent expansion of

competitive opportunities in video

program delivery markets. We also ask

commenters to identify specific

Commission rules, policies or

regulations that ought to be reexamined

in light of current competitive

opportunities within multichannel

video programming markets.

Administrative Matters:

Ex Parte

18. There are no ex parte or disclosure

requirements applicable to this

proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR

1.1204(a)(4).

Comment Dates

19. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and

1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before July 31, 1998,

and reply comments on or before

August 31, 1998. To file formally in this

proceeding, participants must file an

original and four copies of all

comments, reply comments and

supporting comments. If participants
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices 36691

want each Commissioner to receive a

personal copy of their comments, an

original plus ten copies must be filed.

Comments and reply comments should

be sent to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239) of the Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554.

Ordering Clauses

20. This Notice of Inquiry is issued

pursuant to authority contained in

sections 4(i), 4(j), 403 and 628(g) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17831 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

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 10:02 a.m. on Wednesday, July 1,

1998, the Board of Directors of the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

met in closed session to consider

matters relating to the Corporation’s

supervisory activities.

In calling the meeting, the Board

determined, on motion of Vice

Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr.,

seconded by Director Joseph H. Neely

(Appointive), concurred in by Mr.

Richard M. Riccobono, acting in the

place and stead of Director Ellen S.

Seidman (Director, Office of Thrift

Supervision), Director Julia L. Williams

(Acting Comtroller of the Currency), and

Chairman Donna Tanoue, that

Corporation business required its

consideration of the matters on less than

seven days’ notice to the public; that no

earlier notice of the meeting was

practicable; that the public interest did

not require consideration of the matters

in a meeting open to public observation;

and that the matters could be

considered in a closed meeting by

authority of subsections (c)(6), (c)(8),

and (c)(9)(A)(ii) of the ‘‘Government in

the Sunshine Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6),

(c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii)).

The meeting was held in the Board

Room of the FDIC Building located at

550—17th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C.

Dated: July 1, 1998.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–18024 Filed 7–2–98; 10:22 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–M

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

Announcing an Open Meeting of the

Board

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday,

July 8, 1998.

PLACE: Board Room, Floor, Federal

Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

STATUS: The entire meeting will be open

to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED DURING

PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:

—Revisions to Procedures for Review of

Disputed Supervisory Determinations

—Appointment of Federal Home Loan

Bank Directors of Dallas and Topeka

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board,

(202) 408–2837.

William W. Ginsberg,

Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 98–18122 Filed 7–2–98; 3:10 pm]

BILLING CODE 6725–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;

Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or

Bank Holding Companies

The notificants listed below have

applied under the Change in Bank

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and §

225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the notices are

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices

also will be available for inspection at

the offices of the Board of Governors.

Interested persons may express their

views in writing to the Reserve Bank

indicated for that notice or to the offices

of the Board of Governors. Comments

must be received not later than July 20,

1998.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand,

Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue,

P.O. Box 291, Minneapolis, Minnesota

55480-0291:

1. Lonnie E. Clark, Chandler,

Minnesota; to acquire additional voting

shares of Chandler Bancshares, Inc.,

Chandler, Minnesota, and thereby

indirectly acquire State Bank of

Chandler, Chandler, Minnesota.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas

City (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas

City, Missouri 64198-0001:

1. Leonard R. Scoleri and Synthia L.

Scoleri, both of Guernsey, Wyoming; to

acquire voting shares of Community

Bankshares of Wyoming, Guernsey,

Wyoming, and thereby indirectly

acquire Oregon Trail Bank, Guernsey,

Wyoming.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, June 30, 1998.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 98–17864 Filed 7–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

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 July 30, 1998.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

(Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 104