13536 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Notices

Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street,

SW., Room TW–C305, Washington, DC.

This meeting is open to members of

the general public. The FCC will

attempt to accommodate as many

participants as possible. 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 the meeting.

Requests to make an oral statement or

provide written comments to the NANC

should be sent to Cheryl Callahan at the

address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, stated above.

Proposed Agenda

1. Approval of January 16–17, 2001

and February 20–21, 2001 meeting

minutes.

2. North American Numbering Plan

Administrator (NANPA) Report

3. Report of NANPA Oversight

Working Group

—NANPA Performance Issues (if any)

—NANPA Technical Requirements

Update

—2000 NANPA Performance Update

4. Report of Numbering Resource

Optimization (NRO) Working Group

—Continuing Review of NANP Exhaust

—Monitoring of State Pooling Trials

5. Industry Numbering Committee

Report

6. Report of Toll Free Access Codes

IMG

—Competitive Bids

—Structure and Tariff Issues

—Final Technical Requirements

—Transmittal to FCC

7. Report of the Local Number

Portability Administration (LNPA)

Working Group

—Wireless Number Portability

Subcommittee

—Revised PIM–5 Solutions for

Inadvertent Porting

8. Report of Cost Recovery Working

Group

—Finalize NBANC B&C Technical

Requirements

9. Report of ‘‘Big Picture’’ Ad Hoc

Group

10. Steering Group Meeting

—Table of NANC Projects

11. Steering Group Report

12. Report from NBANC

13. Reseller CIC IMG status report

14. Oversight of LLCs NPAC

15. Meeting Procedures IMG

16. Action Items and Decisions

Reached (5 minutes each, if any)

17. Public Participation

18. Other Business

Federal Communications Commission.

Diane Griffin Harmon,

Deputy Chief, Network Services Division,

Common Carrier Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–5303 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Monday, March

12, 2001.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal

Reserve Board Building, 20th and C

Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Personnel actions (appointments,

promotions, assignments,

reassignments, and salary actions)

involving individual Federal Reserve

System employees.

2. Any items carried forward from a

previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board;

202–452–3203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may

call 202–452–3206 beginning at

approximately 5 p.m. two business days

before the meeting for a recorded

announcement of bank and bank

holding company applications

scheduled for the meeting; or you may

contact the Board’s Web site at http://

www.federalreserve.gov for an

electronic announcement that not only

lists applications, but also indicates

procedural and other information about

the meeting.

Dated: March 2, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01–5582 Filed 3–2–01; 2:21 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Notice Requesting Comments on

Retail Electricity Competition Plans

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice requesting comments on

retail electricity competition plans.

SUMMARY: Many States have enacted

and, in some cases, begun to implement

legislation designed to introduce

competition into the retail sale of

electricity in order to encourage lower

prices, better service, and greater

innovation. Recently, however,

substantial price increases and

reliability problems in some of the areas

undergoing a transition to competition

raise questions about how electricity

restructuring can best be designed to

benefit retail customers. The Federal

Trade Commission seeks to gather

information about the results, to date, of

different regulatory approaches to the

issues that arise in restructuring the

retail sale of electricity. The

Commission will produce a report that

discusses the advantages and

disadvantages associated with different

approaches to particular issues and that

identifies, if warranted, areas in which

additional federal legislative or

regulatory action may be desirable.

DATES: Comments are due on April 3,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Any interested person may

submit a written comment that will be

considered part of the public record.

Written presentations should be

submitted in both hard copy and

electronic form. Six hard copies of each

submission should be addressed to

Donald S. Clark, Office of the Secretary,

Federal Trade Commission, 600

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20580. Submissions

should be captioned ‘‘V010003—

Comments Regarding Retail Electricity

Competition.’’ Electronic submissions

may be sent by electronic mail to

retailelectricity@ftc.gov. Alternatively,

electronic submissions may be filed on

a 31⁄2 inch computer disk with a label

on the disk stating the name of the

submitter and the name and version of

the word processing program used to

create the document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Wroblewski, Policy Planning,

Federal Trade Commission, 600

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580, 202–326–2155,

mwroblewski@ftc.gov or John Hilke,

Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade

Commission, 1961 Stout Street, C/O

HHS RM. 325, Denver, CO 80294–0101,

303–844–3565, jhilke@ftc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

In recent years, many states and the

Federal government have taken steps to

encourage competition in the generation

sector of the electric power industry. To

date, 24 states and the District of

Columbia have set dates to allow

customers to choose their electric power

supplier. In light of recent reliability

problems and increases in electricity

prices in California and the western

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Notices 13537

1See generally Letter of the Federal Trade

Commission to House Commerce Committee

Chairman Thomas Bliley, Analysis of H.R. 2944 at

1 (Jan. 14, 2000). The Commission has a long

history of involvement in energy markets. The

Commission has reviewed a series of oil and gas

mergers, as well as several vertical mergers affecting

the electric industry that have raised antitrust

concerns. The Commission also has provided

testimony on market power and consumer

protection issues in the electric power industry to

various Congressional Committees and has

analyzed proposed comprehensive electricity

legislation. The staff of the Commission has

responded to requests for comments from the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on aspects

of wholesale competition and on the appropriate

analytical framework for analyzing mergers. The

staff also has responded to requests from a number

of states for comments on how to evaluate the

impact of existing market power and how to protect

consumers as the states introduce retail competition

in the electric power industry. Moreover, the

Commission further assisted states by conducting a

public workshop in September 1999 that focused on

market power and consumer protection issues of

interest to state regulators who are introducing

competition into retail electric power markets.

Workshop findings were published in a Staff

Report: Competition and Consumer Protection

Perspectives on Electric Power Regulatory Reform

(July 2000) http://www.ftc.gov/be/v000009.htm.

states generally, however, some States

have delayed, or are considering

delaying, implementation of retail

competition plans. For example,

Nevada, Montana, West Virginia, and

Arkansas have decided to delay, or have

considered delaying, the transition to

competition that they had previously

established, while others have

determined that restructuring is not in

the public interest at this time (e.g.,

Louisiana, Colorado, Alabama, and

Mississippi).

Competition among market

participants will ordinarily provide

customers with the benefits of lower

prices than would otherwise prevail,

higher quality products and services,

increased variety of products and

services, and enhanced rates of

innovation.1 Effective competition may

not develop instantaneously, however,

after decades of pervasive regulation

and local franchised monopolies.

Moreover, the effectiveness of

competition may be affected greatly by

the rules that govern the operation of

the market and that provide incentives

to guide market participants’ behavior.

In light of the recent increases in

electric power prices and reliability

difficulties, the Chairman of the Energy

and Commerce Committee of the United

States House of Representatives, W.J.

‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, and the Chairman of the

Subcommittee on Energy and Air

Quality, Joe Barton, have requested that

the Commission examine various state

retail competition programs and

describe those features that appear to

have resulted in consumer benefits and

those that have not yielded consumer

benefits. In addition, the Commission

has been asked to examine possible

jurisdictional limitations on the states’

authority to design successful retail

competition plans. To comply with this

request, the Commission will update its

July 2000 Staff Report: Competition and

Consumer Protection Perspectives on

Electric Power Regulatory Reform.

For the updated report, the

Commission seeks additional

information about the benefits and

drawbacks of state retail electricity

competition plans. The Commission

proposes to examine state plans that

allow customers to choose their

generation supplier, and state plans

with unique approaches to retail

electricity competition. These states

may include, but are not limited to,

Arizona, California, Illinois, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

New Jersey, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, and Texas. The

Commission will work with the states to

understand the various features of plans

(e.g., standardized labeling rules,

supplier licensing requirements,

provider of last resort obligations,

pricing of default service) and to gather

facts relevant to understanding the

market reaction to a particular state’s

plan (e.g., number of customers eligible

for retail competition, rate of customer

switching to new suppliers, number of

new suppliers offering service).

Listed below is a series of additional

questions about which the Commission

seeks public comment. The Commission

seeks comments on features of state

retail competition plans that have

benefitted consumers and those that

have not. The Commission is

particularly interested in receiving

information about the market response

to various provisions of state retail

competition plans. It is not necessary to

respond to each question for every state.

Rather, it would be helpful for

respondents to provide, for example,

specific information about market

responses to a particular state’s retail

competition plan, or a comparison of

the market responses to the means

individual states have used to address

one or more subject matter areas (e.g.,

provider of last resort pricing, consumer

education efforts).

Specific Questions to Be Addressed

History and Overview

1. Why did the state implement retail

electricity competition? What problems

of the previous regulatory regime was it

trying to solve?

2. What were the expected benefits of

retail competition? Were price

reductions expected in absolute terms or

in relation to what price levels would be

absent retail competition? Were the

benefits of retail competition expected

to be available to consumers in urban,

suburban, and rural areas? Were the

benefits expected to be available for

residential, commercial, and industrial

customers? Were the benefits expected

to be comparable for each group of

customers?

3. What factors or measures should

the Commission examine in viewing the

success of a state’s retail electricity

competition program? How should these

measures be evaluated?

4. What are the most successful and

least successful elements in the state’s

retail competition program? Has the

state taken steps to modify the least

successful elements?

Consumer Protection Issues

1. What efforts were made to educate

consumers about retail competition?

How was the success of these efforts

measured? Were the programs

successful? Who funded these efforts?

Who implemented the programs?

2. Do consumers have enough

information to readily make informed

choices among competing suppliers?

Did the state coordinate its labeling

requirements about the attributes of a

supplier’s product, if any, with

neighboring states? Is there a need for

federal assistance to provide

standardized supplier labeling? If so,

what would be the most useful federal

role?

3. Have consumers complained about

unauthorized switching of their

accounts to alternative suppliers

(‘‘slamming’’) or the placement of

unauthorized charges on their electric

bills (‘‘cramming’’)? Were rules adopted

to prevent these practices? Has the state

taken enforcement action under its new

authority against slamming and

cramming? Have these actions been

effective to curb the alleged abuses? Is

there a need for federal assistance with

slamming and cramming issues? If so,

what would be the most useful federal

role?

4. How did the state facilitate the

ability of customers to switch to a new

supplier? Have these efforts been

successful? Does the state allow

consumers to aggregate their electricity

demand? If so, has aggregation enabled

consumers to benefit from retail

electricity competition? If not, why not?

5. Has the state established licensing

or certification requirements for new

suppliers to provide electricity to

customers? Why? Which licensing

provisions are designed to protect

consumers? How do they operate? Has

the state taken enforcement action

13538 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Notices

2 ‘‘Supplier of last resort’’ obligation refers to a

company’s duty to provide generation services to

customers who have not chosen a new supplier.

This obligation may be retained by the incumbent

utility, it may be auctioned to alternative suppliers,

or customers may be assigned to new suppliers.

Many states have combined this obligation with the

default service obligation to serve customers whose

chosen supplier has exited the market.

against unlicensed firms? Have these

actions been effective to curb

unlicensed activity? Have these

requirements acted as an entry barrier

for new suppliers?

6. Did the state place any restrictions

on the ability of a utility’s unregulated

affiliate(s) to use a similar name and/or

logo as its parent utility, in order to

avoid consumer confusion when the

affiliate offered unregulated generation

services? Why or why not? What has

been the experience to date with the use

of these restrictions? Are consumers

knowledgeable about who their

suppliers are?

7. Did the state place any restrictions

on third-party or affiliate use of a

utility’s customer information (e.g.,

customer usage statistics, financial

information, etc.)? What were the

reasons for enacting the restrictions?

What has been the effect of these

restrictions on new marketing activity?

8. Has the state adopted any other

measures intended to protect consumers

(e.g., length of consumer contracts,

automatic renewal provisions, etc.) as it

implemented retail competition? What

has been the effect of these measures?

9. To what extent have suppliers

engaged in advertising to sell their

product(s)? Do some suppliers claim

that their product is differentiated (e.g.,

that it has environmental benefits)? Has

there been any enforcement or attempts

to verify these advertising claims? Do

any certification organizations, such as

Green-e, operate in the state? Are they

used by (or at least available to) a

substantial portion of consumers?

Retail Supply Issues

1. What difficulties have suppliers

encountered in entering the market?

What conditions/incentives attract

suppliers to retail markets? Have

suppliers exited the market after

beginning to provide retail service? If so,

why?

2. What are the customer acquisition

costs and operational costs to service

retail customers? How do acquisition

and operational costs compare to profit

margins for electric power generation

services? Do retail margins affect entry?

If so, how? Did the state harmonize the

procedures suppliers use to attract and

switch customers with other states’

procedures, in order to reduce

suppliers’ costs?

3. Have customers switched to new

suppliers? Why or why not? Are there

greater incentives for certain customer

classes (i.e., industrial, commercial,

residential) than for others to switch

suppliers? Why or why not? Are

penalties or different rates applied to

customers that switch back to the

supplier of last resort? Are there other

measures to determine whether

customers are actively considering

switching suppliers? If so, do these

indicators show different patterns than

the switching rate data?

4. Have suppliers offered new types of

products and services (e.g., time of day

pricing, interruptible contracts, green

power, etc.) in states where retail

competition has been implemented? If

so, describe the products and what

customer response has been.

5. What are the benefits or drawbacks

of the different approaches to handling

the supplier of last resort obligation 2 for

customers who do not choose a new

supplier (e.g., allow incumbent utility to

retain the obligation to provide

generation services to non-choosing

customers, auction the obligation, or

assign the obligation to non-utility

parties). What has been consumer

reaction to these approaches? Is

provider of last resort service necessary?

Retail Pricing Issues

1. How is entry affected by the price

for the provider of last resort service (for

customers who do not choose) or for

default service (for customer whose

supplier exits the market)? How does

the price for the provider of last resort

or default service compare to prices

offered by alternative suppliers? Is the

price for provider of last resort service

or default service capped? If so, for how

long?

2. Has the state required retail rate

reductions prior to the start of retail

competition? What is the rationale for

these reductions? How have statemandated rate reductions prior to the

start of retail competition affected retail

competition?

3. Do any seasonal fluctuations in the

price of wholesale generation cause

some suppliers to enter the market only

at certain times of the year? How have

these suppliers fared?

4. How has the state addressed public

benefit programs (e.g., universal service

requirements, low income assistance,

conservation education, etc.) as it has

implemented retail competition? Which

of these programs are necessary as

competition is introduced and why? Are

public benefits available to all

customers or are they restricted to

customers of the supplier of last resort?

How does this affect retail competition?

Market Structure Issues

1. How has the development of

Regional Transmission Organizations

(RTOs) affected retail competition in the

state?

2. Did the state require the divestiture

of generation assets (or impose other

regulatory conditions on the use of these

assets) when retail competition was

introduced? To what extent was

divestiture of generation assets a

component of the state’s handling of a

utility’s stranded costs? Was divestiture

used to remedy a high concentration of

generation assets serving the state? Was

there appreciable voluntary divestiture

of generation assets? Has the state

examined whether there has been

appreciable consolidation of ownership

of generation serving the state since the

start of retail competition?

3. If a utility no longer owns

generation assets to meet its obligations

as the supplier of last resort or default

service provider, what market

mechanism (e.g., spot market purchases,

buy back or output contracts, etc.) does

it use to obtain generation services to

fulfill these obligations? What share of

a utility’s load is obtained via the

different mechanisms? How are these

shares trending? Is the market

mechanism transparent? Is it necessary

to monitor these market mechanisms?

Why or why not? If so, what should the

monitor examine?

4. Explain the state’s role in

overseeing operation of the transmission

grid in the state and the extent to which

public power or municipal power

transmission systems are integrated into

this effort. What is the relationship

between the state’s role and the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission’s role in

transmission system operation in the

state?

5. Do firms that have provider of last

resort or default service obligations

(formerly ‘‘native load’’ obligations in

the regulated environment) receive

preferential transmission treatment? If

so, how does this affect wholesale

electric power competition? How and by

whom should retail sales of bundled

transmission services (i.e., retail sales of

both energy and transmission services)

and retail sales of unbundled

transmission be regulated? If by more

than one entity, how should regulation

be coordinated? What should the state’s

role be in overseeing wholesale

transmission reliability?

6. To what extent did the state

identify transmission constraints

affecting access to out-of-state or in-state

generation prior to the start of retail

competition? Is the state capable of

remedying these transmission

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Notices 13539

constraints, or is federal jurisdiction

necessary? How do the rationales for

federal jurisdiction over electric power

transmission siting compare to the

reasons underlying federal jurisdiction

over the siting of natural gas pipelines?

7. How have state siting regulations

for new generation and transmission

facilities been affected by the onset of

retail competition? Has new generation

siting kept pace with demand growth in

the state? If not, why not? Is federal

jurisdiction necessary for siting of

electric power generation facilities? Has

the state actively monitored and

reported the relationship between instate capacity and peak demand in the

state? What incentives do suppliers

have to maintain adequate reserve

capacity? What are the ways to value

capacity in competitive markets? Is

reserve sharing still important in

competitive markets? Do other

institutions/market processes provide a

reasonable substitute for reserve

sharing?

8. Since the start of retail competition,

what has been the rate of generation

plant outages (scheduled and

unscheduled)? To what extent has the

state monitored these outages and

examined their causes?

Other Issues

1. What measures has the state taken

to make customer demand responsive to

changes in available supply? Has the

state provided utilities incentives to

make customers more price responsive?

Has the state moved away from average

cost pricing? What effect have these

measures had on demand and on

demand elasticity?

2. Has the state provided mechanisms

and incentives for owners of cogeneration capacity to offer power

during peak demand periods? Has the

state identified, reported, and facilitated

development of pumped storage

facilities or other approaches to

arbitraging between peak and off-peak

wholesale electricity prices?

3. What issues have arisen under

retail competition that have required

cooperation or coordination with other

states? What approach was taken to

securing this cooperation or

coordination? Are there other issues

requiring cooperation that have not yet

been addressed? Which of these issues

are the most significant?

4. How prevalent is the use of

distributed resources (e.g., distributed

generation) within the state? What

barriers do customers face to

implementing distributed resources?

5. Which specific jurisdictional issues

prevent state retail competition

programs from being as successful as

they might be?

6. Which specific technological

developments are likely to substantially

affect retail or wholesale competition in

the electric power industry that may

alter the manner in which states

structure retail competition plans?

Why? What time frame is associated

with these developments?

7. What are the lessons to be learned

from the retail electricity competition

efforts of other countries? Are there

other formerly-regulated industries in

the U.S. (e.g., natural gas) that allow

customer choice and provide useful

comparisons to retail electricity

competition? If so, what are the relevant

insights or lessons to be learned?

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–5429 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

Draft Guideline for Environmental

Infection Control in Healthcare

Facilities, 2001

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health

and Human Services (DHHS).

ACTION: Notice of availability and

request for public comment.

SUMMARY: This notice is a request for

review of and comment on the ‘‘Draft

Guideline for Environmental Infection

Control in Healthcare Facilities, 2001.’’

The guideline consists of two parts,

references, and appendices. Part I is

entitled ‘‘Background Information:

Environmental Infection Control in

Healthcare Facilities,’’ and Part II is

entitled ‘‘Recommendations for

Environmental Infection Control in

Healthcare Facilities.’’ The document

was prepared by the Healthcare

Infection Control Practices Advisory

Committee (HICPAC), the Division of

Healthcare Quality Promotion (formerly

Hospital Infections Program), the

Division of Bacterial and Mycotic

Diseases, and the Division of Parasitic

Diseases, National Center for Infectious

Diseases (NCID), and the Division of

Oral Health, National Center for Chronic

Disease Prevention and Health

Promotion, CDC.

DATES: Comments on the draft

document must be submitted in writing

on or before April 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the Draft

Guideline for Environmental Infection

Control in Healthcare Facilities, 2001

should be submitted to the Resource

Center, Attention: EnviroGuide,

Division of Healthcare Quality

Promotion, CDC, Mailstop E–68, 1600

Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30333; fax: 404–639–6459; e-mail:

envirocomments@cdc.gov; or Internet

URL: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/

enviro/guide.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for copies of the Draft

Guideline for Environmental Infection

Control in Healthcare Facilities, 2001

should be submitted to the Resource

Center, Division of Healthcare Quality

Promotion, CDC, Mailstop E–68, 1600

Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30333; fax: 404–639–6459; e-mail:

envirorequests@cdc.gov; or Internet

URL: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/

enviro/guide.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 2-

part document updates and replaces

portions of the previously published

CDC Guideline for Handwashing and

Hospital Environmental Control and the

Environmental Infection Control

portions of the CDC Guideline for

Prevention of Nosocomial Pneumonia,

1994. Part I, ‘‘Background Information:

Environmental Infection Control in

Healthcare Facilities,’’ serves as the

background for the consensus

recommendations of HICPAC that are

contained in Part II, ‘‘Recommendations

for Environmental Infection Control in

Healthcare Facilities.’’ This guideline

also identifies key process management

elements to assist facilities in

monitoring compliance with the

evidence-based Category IA or IB

recommendations provided in Part II.

These include: (1) Conducting risk

assessment prior to construction,

renovation, demolition, or major repair

projects; (2) conducting ventilation

assessments related to construction

barrier installation; (3) establishing and

maintaining appropriate pressure

differentials for special care areas [e.g.,

operating rooms, airborne infection

isolation, protective environments]; (4)

evaluating non-tuberculous

mycobacteria culture results for possible

environmental sources; and (5)

implementing infection control

procedures to prevent environmental

spread of antibiotic-resistant grampositive cocci and assuring compliance

with these procedures.

HICPAC was established in 1991 to

provide advice and guidance to the

Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for

Health, DHHS; the Director, CDC, and

the Director, NCID, regarding the