This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

9681

Vol. 66, No. 28

Friday, February 9, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Part 24

RIN 1515–AB38

Fees Assessed for Defaulted Payments

AGENCY: Customs Service, Department

of the Treasury.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This document withdraws the

proposed amendment to the Customs

Regulations which would have allowed

the assessment of a $30 defaulted

payment fee for any check or other

monetary instrument that was presented

for duties, taxes or other charges, and

returned unpaid by a financial

institution, in connection with any

commercial importation or other

transaction secured by a Customs bond.

Customs has concluded that the fee

should not be assessed in cases where

the transaction is already backed by a

Customs bond and liquidated damages

may properly be assessed under the

bond for a defaulted payment. Customs

authority to assess the $30 fee thus

remains limited to defaulted payments

on noncommercial importations and

other transactions that are not supported

by a bond.

DATE: This withdrawal is effective on

February 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Baker, Office of Finance, (202–

927–0205).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under § 24.1(e) of the Customs

Regulations (19 CFR 24.1(e)), Customs

may charge a $30 fee for each check that

is returned by a financial institution

unpaid, if that check was presented to

Customs either for payment of duties,

taxes or other charges incurred on

noncommercial importations for which

a formal entry was not required or for

payment in connection with any other

transaction not backed by a Customs

bond.

By a document published in the

Federal Register (59 FR 13664) on

March 23, 1994, Customs proposed to

amend § 24.1(e) to also provide for a $30

defaulted payment fee in those cases

where the transaction was secured by a

bond, in order to recoup the

administrative costs incurred for

processing returned checks and other

defaulted payments in these situations

as well.

Withdrawal of Proposal

Three comments were received from

the public in response to the proposed

rule. All opposed the amendment of

§ 24.1(e) to provide for a $30 fee in cases

of defaulted payments of duties, taxes or

other charges to Customs incurred in

connection with commercial

importations or other transactions that

were supported by a bond. After careful

consideration of these comments, and

further review of the matter, Customs

has determined not to proceed with the

notice of proposed rulemaking to this

effect that was published in the Federal

Register (59 FR 13664) on March 23,

1994. Customs has concluded at this

time that an additional fee should not be

assessed in cases where a commercial

importation or other Customs

transaction is secured by a bond under

which liquidated damages may properly

be assessed for a defaulted payment of

duties, taxes or other applicable charges.

Customs authority to assess the $30 fee

thus remains limited to defaulted

payments on noncommercial

importations and other transactions that

are not supported by a bond.

Raymond W. Kelly,

Commissioner of Customs.

Approved: November 9, 2000.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 01–3359 Filed 2–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4520–02–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 43 and 32

[CC Docket No. 98–137; CC Docket No. 99–

117; AAD File No. 98–26; FCC 00–396]

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review—

Review of Depreciation Requirements

for Incumbent Local Exchange

Carriers, Ameritech Corporation

Telephone Operating Companies’

Continuing Property Records Audit, et

al., GTE Telephone Operating

Companies Release of Information

Obtained During Joint Audit

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission declines to adopt the

alternative proposal set forth in a

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

issued on April 3, 2000 concerning

conditions for price cap incumbent local

exchange carriers (ILECs) to obtain relief

from the Commission’s depreciation

requirements. In addition, the

Commission declines to pursue further

investigation into the continuing

property record (CPR) audits of certain

ILECs that are currently before the

Commission.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, TW–

A325, Washington, DC. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

JoAnn Lucanik at (202) 418–0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Second

Report and Order in CC Docket 99–137

and Order in CC Docket No. 99–117 and

AAD File No. 98–26. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. The

complete text may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, Washington, DC

20036, telephone (202) 857–3800.

Summary of the Order

The alternative proposal set forth in

the April 2000 FNPRM, 65 FR 19725

(April 12, 2000), as an option for price

cap ILECs to obtain freedom from the

Commission’s depreciation

9682 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

requirements, generated a great deal of

controversy among the parties. In

particular, significant concerns were

raised by state regulatory commissions,

consumer groups, and industry

participants about the effect that the

proposed above-the-line accounting

treatment would have on local and

interstate rates, unbundled network

element (UNE) and interconnection

rates, and universal service support.

Many parties commenting on this issue

generally disagreed with an accounting

treatment that would permit above-theline amortization of the regulatory-tofinancial book differential over a fiveyear period. They also argued that the

proposed non-recovery commitment

included as part of the proposed

alternative did not provide adequate

assurance that a significant amount of

costs would be excluded from recovery

in customers’ rates and did not protect

against carriers’ potential

understatement of earnings and rates of

return. In addition, many parties raised

issues about the potential impact of the

proposed above-the-line accounting

treatment on state cost issues and

argued that the non-recovery

commitment proposed by the ILECs was

not sufficient to assure that the

amortized costs, particularly the

intrastate portion, would be excluded

from cost recovery.

Our review of the record finds that the

parties have raised sufficient concerns

that warrant our taking a cautious

approach in this matter. We are

concerned about assertions that the

proposed accounting alternative set

forth in the April 2000 FNPRM, along

with the ILECs’ non-recovery

commitment, lacks the inherent

protections that are provided for in the

waiver process we approved in the

December 1999 Order (which was not

published in Federal Register). In light

of the concerns expressed by various

parties, particularly our state colleagues,

we decline to adopt the proposed

alternative set forth in the April 2000

FNPRM and instead maintain the status

quo.

In making a decision here we weigh

the concerns expressed by the states

heavily in the balance. We are reluctant

to take action that could unfairly burden

state proceedings, particularly when our

December 1999 Order provides a waiver

process whereby carriers may seek

additional relief from our depreciation

prescription rules in the future without

raising such concerns. In 1997, the

Common Carrier Bureau’s auditors

began an audit of the CPRs of the largest

ILECs, the RBOCs, to determine if their

records were being maintained in

compliance with the Commission’s

rules and to verify that property

recorded in their accounts represented

equipment used and useful for the

provision of telecommunications

services.

We note that the audits of the carriers’

CPRs were initiated more than three

years ago. The telecommunications

landscape has changed significantly

since that time. Among other things, in

a recent decision issued on May 31,

2000, we adopted reforms intended to

accelerate competition in the local and

long distance telecommunications

markets and set the appropriate level of

interstate access charges for the next

five years (‘‘May 2000 Access Reform

Order’’) (which was not published in

the Federal Register). Specifically, we

provided for an immediate reduction in

access charges paid by long distance

companies and removed implicit

subsidies found in interstate access

charges by converting them into

explicit, portable, universal service

support. In earlier actions to implement

the 1996 Act, we took steps to move the

price of long distance companies’ access

to local telephone networks towards

levels that reflect costs. These actions

have brought about significant

reductions in access charges and major

changes in the interstate rate structure

that resolve historically complex issues

(some dating back nearly two decades),

in a manner that benefits consumers.

In light of these recent reform

measures, which in large part are only

beginning to get underway, and the fact

that the CPR audits were conducted

prior to our implementation of these

various reforms, we now decide not to

pursue further investigation into the

CPR audits and close the proceeding

with regard to whether the CPRs

reflected assets that were not purchased

or used by the RBOCs in accordance

with our rules. Further, we note that

although we have made no decision

concerning the findings stated in the

CPR audits, we recognize that further

investigation into the CPR audit matter

will require a great deal of time and

effort, and could prove to be a lengthy

and costly proceeding for all

participants. We wish to make clear,

however, that our decision in this order

does not preclude the states from

investigating relevant state issues raised

by the CPR audits.

Finally, while we decline here to

further pursue investigation into the

CPR audits with regard to whether the

CPRs reflected assets that were not

purchased or used by the RBOCs in

accordance with our rules, we remain

concerned about the poor record

keeping that these audits revealed. The

Commission’s auditors found, and the

RBOCs did not seriously challenge, that

the CPRs were not well maintained.

Thus, we find that the RBOCs’ CPRs

were not maintained in accordance with

our rules. Accordingly, we direct the

Common Carrier Bureau to work with

the RBOCs to evaluate and improve the

accuracy of their property records and

accounts to ensure compliance with our

requirements going forward.

Conclusion

The alternative proposal set forth in

the April 2000 FNPRM has generated

substantial controversy over whether it

provides the same protections as

provided in the December 1999 Order

given the expressed concerns of our

state colleagues, we decline to adopt it.

Carriers remain free to seek relief under

the waiver approach adopted in the

December 1999 Order to obtain freedom

from the Commission’s depreciation

requirements. Moreover, we have

determined not to pursue further

investigation into whether the RBOCs’

CPRs reflected assets that were not

purchased or used by the RBOCs in

accordance with our rules and hereby

close the CPR audit proceedings in this

respect.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3117 Filed 2–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–193; MM Docket No. 00–155; RM–

9924]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Las

Vegas and Rowe, NM

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; denial.

SUMMARY: The Commission denies the

request of Meadows Media, LLC,

permittee of Station KTRL, Las Vegas,

New Mexico, to substitute Channel

275C3 for Channel 275C2 at Las Vegas,

the reallotment of Channel 275C3 to

Rowe, as its first local aural service, and

the modification of Station KTRL’s

construction permit accordingly. The

Commission found that petitioner did

not show that Rowe has sufficient

community indicia to find that it is a

community for allotment purposes. In

addition, even if it were found to be a

community for allotment purposes, the

Commission found that the reallotment

would not result in a preferential