[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 132 (Monday, July 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42361-42365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17287]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATONS COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 00-65; FCC 00-238]


Application by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell 
Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. 
d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long Distance, Pursuant to Section 271 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service 
in the State of Texas

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission grants the section 271 
application of Southwestern Bell (SWBT) for authority to enter the 
interLATA toll market in the State of Texas. The Commission grants 
SWBT's application based on our conclusion that SWBT has satisfied all 
of the statutory requirements for entry, and opened its local exchange 
markets to full competition.

DATES: Effective date of approval of section 271 application is July 
10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Wright or William Dever, 
Attorneys, Policy and Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, 
at (202) 418-1580, or via the Internet at [email protected] or 
[email protected], respectively. The full text of the Order is available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, Washington, DC 
20554. Further information may also be obtained by calling the Common 
Carrier Bureau's TTY number: (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document is a brief description of the 
Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order adopted June 30, 2000, and 
released June 30, 2000. The full text also may be obtained through the 
World Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/ Orders/index6.html, or may 
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service Inc. (ITS), CY B-400, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC.

Synopsis of the Memorandum Opinion and Order

    1. History of the Application. On January 10, 2000, SWBT filed an 
application with the Federal Communications Commission to provide in-
region, interLATA service in the State of Texas. On April 5, 2000, SWBT 
filed an extensive supplement to its January 2000 application. On April 
6,

[[Page 42362]]

2000, the Commission announced that, at SWBT's request, it would 
consider the January 2000 application as withdrawn, and would treat the 
supplemental filing as a new application incorporating the record from 
the initial proceeding.
    2. The Texas Commission's Evaluation. The Texas Commission advised 
the Commission that, following extensive review, testing, and process 
improvements, SWBT met the checklist requirements of section 271(c) and 
had taken the statutorily required steps to open its local markets to 
competition. Specifically, the Texas Commission stated that SWBT met 
its obligation under section 271(c)(1)(A) by entering into 
interconnection agreements with at least 17 competing carriers that are 
serving residential and business customers either exclusively or 
predominantly over their own facilities. The Texas Commission found 
that SWBT had fully complied with section 271, and voted without 
qualification to support the application.
    3. The Department of Justice's Evaluation. The Department of 
Justice submitted evaluations of SWBT's application on May 12 and June 
13, 2000. In its May 12 evaluation, the Department of Justice concluded 
that SWBT's performance with respect to interconnection trunking had 
sufficiently improved to alleviate its concerns with respect to that 
issue. In its June 13, 2000 evaluation, the Department of Justice 
recommended approval of SWBT's application to provide long distance 
service in Texas. Specifically, the Department of Justice concluded 
that SWBT had significantly improved the process by which it measures 
and reports its performance in providing unbundled loops for DSL 
services, and had demonstrated improvement in its ability to provision 
DSL-capable loops in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Department of 
Justice further found that SWBT had demonstrated improvement in cutting 
over a loop to a competing carrier, specifically through the 
coordinated hot cut (CHC) process, and to a lesser degree, through the 
frame due time (FDT) processes. Finally, the Department of Justice 
stated that commercial data with respect to competing carriers' ability 
to compete via the UNE-platform are encouraging, and noted that order 
volumes in this area had increased steadily over the last few months.
    4. Compliance with Section 271(c)(1)(A). We conclude that SWBT 
demonstrates that it satisfies the requirements of section 217(c)(1)(A) 
based on the interconnection agreements it has implemented with 
competing carriers in Texas. Specifically, we find that AT&T, Birch, 
CoServ, ETS, Optel, Sage and KMC all provide telephone exchange service 
either exclusively or predominantly over their own facilities to 
residential subscribers and to business subscribers. The Texas 
Commission also concludes that SWBT has met the requirements of section 
271(c)(1)(A). None of the commenting parties, including the competitors 
cited by SBC in support of its showing, challenges SWBT's assertion in 
this regard.
    5. Checklist Item 1--Interconnection. We conclude that SWBT 
satisfies the requirements of checklist item 1. Pursuant to this 
checklist item, SWBT must allow other carriers to interconnect their 
networks to its network for the mutual exchange of traffic, using any 
available method of interconnection at any available point in SWBT's 
network. We find that SWBT demonstrates that it provides 
interconnection at all technically feasible points on its network. We 
likewise find that SWBT adequately demonstrates that it provides 
collocation in Texas in accordance with the Commission's rules. 
Furthermore, interconnection between networks must be equal in quality 
whether the interconnection is between SWBT and an affiliate, or 
between SWBT and another carrier. SWBT demonstrates that it provides 
interconnection that meets this standard.
    6. SWBT also offers interconnection in Texas to other 
telecommunications carriers at just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory 
rates, in compliance with checklist item 1. SWBT offers interconnection 
at the total element, long-run incremental cost (TELRIC)-based rates 
that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, pursuant to our 
rules. SWBT complies with our rules because it pro-rates its site 
preparation charges and allocates them according to our rules.
    7. SWBT meets the standards for interim collocation rates set forth 
in our order approving Bell Atlantic's section 271 application. See 
Application of Bell Atlantic New York for Authorization Under Section 
271 of the Communications Act, 64 Fed. Reg. 73555 (1999). The mere 
presence of interim rates will not generally threaten a section 271 
application so long as an interim solution to a particular rate dispute 
is reasonable under the circumstances, the state commission has 
demonstrated its commitment to our pricing rules, and provision is made 
for refunds or true-ups once permanent rates are set. Here, the state 
has made reasonable efforts to set interim collocation rates in 
accordance with the Act and the FCC's rules. Moreover, the Texas 
Commission based the majority of the interim rates, at least with 
regard to physical collocation, on a TELRIC model. The Texas Commission 
has set up a schedule to set permanent rates, and has indicated to the 
parties that the interim rates are subject to a refund or true-up.
    8. Checklist Item 2--Access to Unbundled Network Elements. We 
conclude that SWBT satisfies the requirements of checklist item 2. For 
the purposes of the checklist, SWBT's obligation to provide ``access to 
unbundled network elements,'' or the individual components of the 
telephone network, is comprised of three aspects. First, to fulfill its 
nondiscrimination checklist obligation, SWBT must provide access to its 
operations support systems (OSS)--the term used to describe the 
systems, databases and personnel necessary support the network elements 
or services. Nondiscriminatory access ensures that new entrants have 
the ability to order service for their customers and communicate 
effectively with SWBT regarding basic activities such as placing 
orders, providing maintenance and repair service for customers. For 
each of the primary OSS functions, including pre-ordering, ordering, 
provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing, as well as change 
management and technical assistance, SWBT must provide access that 
enables competing carriers to perform the function in substantially the 
same time and manner as SWBT or, if there is not an appropriate retail 
analogue in SWBT's systems, in a manner that permits an efficient 
competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete.
    9. As an initial matter, SWBT demonstrates that it provides 
documentation and technical assistance necessary for new entrants to 
connect with its OSS, and a change management process that provides 
information necessary for competing carriers to modify their systems 
and procedures when SWBT changes its OSS. With respect to pre-ordering, 
or the activities that a competing carrier undertakes to gather and 
verify the information necessary to place an order, SWBT demonstrates 
(primarily through evidence of actual commercial usage) that it has 
deployed operationally ready interfaces and systems that offer 
nondiscriminatory access to pre-ordering OSS functions. Specifically, 
SWBT's pre-ordering interfaces and systems enable competing carriers to

[[Page 42363]]

retrieve customer service records, validate addresses, select and 
reserve telephone numbers, assess the services and features available 
to customers, retrieve due date information, determine whether a loop 
is capable of supporting advanced services (such as DSL), and view a 
customer's directory listing. Also, just as SWBT's own pre-ordering 
systems are ``integrated'' with its ordering systems, competing 
carriers may also integrate the pre-ordering and ordering interfaces, 
and pass information electronically from one to the other.
    10. In terms of the interfaces and systems that enable competing 
carriers to place an order for service, SWBT demonstrates through 
performance data and third-party testing that it its systems return 
timely order confirmation and rejection notices, provide jeopardy and 
order completion notification, flow through a high percentage of orders 
without manual handling, and are capable of handling reasonably 
foreseeable demand volumes. In terms of provisioning, performance data 
demonstrates that SWBT provisions orders for competing carriers' 
customers in substantially the same time and manner that it provisions 
orders for its own retail customers.
    11. In addition, with respect to maintenance and repair, SWBT 
demonstrates through commercial usage that its interfaces and systems 
enable competing carriers to create, modify, and cancel trouble 
tickets, and to request that SWBT test a customer's circuit, in 
substantially the same time and manner as SWBT's retail operations. 
Similarly, SWBT resolves problems associated with customers of 
competing carriers in substantially the same time and manner and at the 
same level of quality that it performs repair work for its own 
customers. Finally, with respect to billing, SWBT demonstrates that it 
provides complete and accurate reports on the service usage of 
competing carriers' customers in the same manner that SWBT provides 
such information to itself.
    12. Pursuant to this checklist item, SWBT must also provide 
nondiscriminatory access to network elements in a manner that allows 
other carriers to combine such elements. Based on evidence of actual 
commercial usage, and upon SWBT's legal obligations under 
interconnection agreements offered in Texas, SWBT demonstrates that it 
provides to competitors combinations of already-combined network 
elements as well as nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network 
elements in a manner that allows competing carriers to combine those 
elements themselves.
    13. We also find that SWBT satisfies the pricing requirements of 
checklist item 2. In fulfilling its obligations under this checklist 
item, SWBT demonstrates that it provides nondiscriminatory access to 
unbundled network elements (UNEs) at any technically feasible point at 
rates, terms and conditions that are just, reasonable, and 
nondiscriminatory. This checklist item ensures that new entrants are 
not placed at a competitive disadvantage due to discriminatory prices 
for network elements.
    14. We do not find that the SWBT's assessment of nonrecurring 
charges on UNE orders causes it to fail this checklist item. First, we 
find that the a central office access charge (COAC) is not subject to 
the Commission's forward-looking methodology because the Supreme Court 
held only that incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) cannot separate 
already combined elements before providing them, not that they must 
combine separate UNEs. AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366 
(1999). Second, we have not examined the prices associated with UNE 
combinations that SWBT is not required to provide. Third, the Texas 
Commission is presently considering whether SWBT may impose the 
nonrecurring charges on competitive LEC orders for existing UNE 
combinations and whether these charges are adequately supported by cost 
documentation. SWBT is not presently collecting nonrecurring charges on 
pre-combined residential platform containing a two-wire analog loop, 
and thus is effectively imposing an interim charge of zero while the 
Texas Commission examines these charges. The Texas Commission has 
established a schedule to set permanent rates for all nonrecurring 
charges, and has indicated to the parties that the interim rates are 
subject to a true-up. We find that SWBT's interim solution is 
reasonable and meets the test set forth in prior section 271 orders.
    15. We reach the same conclusion regarding SWBT's interim rates for 
charges relating to the installation and conditioning of xDSL-capable 
loops. The Texas Commission is now conducting a proceeding to set 
permanent xDSL rates based on cost studies that SWBT submitted at the 
direction of the Texas Commission arbitrator, and this interim solution 
is reasonable under the circumstances. We also find that SWBT's 
promotional discounts on unbundled loop and platform orders for 
telecommunications carriers serving residential customers arise out of 
SBC's merger with Ameritech and do not cause it to fail this checklist 
item. We also found that these promotional offerings are offered to all 
telecommunications carriers on a nondiscriminatory basis.
    16. Checklist Item 3--Poles, Ducts, Conduits and Rights of Way. 
Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that SWBT provides 
nondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-
way at just and reasonable rates in compliance with our rules and 
satisfies the requirements of checklist item 3. The Texas Commission 
concludes that SWBT provides nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts, 
conduits, and rights-of-way at just and reasonable rates that comply 
with the Act and Commission rules. No commenter raised allegations 
challenging SWBT's compliance with this checklist item.
    17. Checklist Item 4--Unbundled Local Loops. SWBT satisfies the 
requirements of checklist item 4. Local loops are the wires that 
connect the telephone company end office to the customer's home or 
business. To satisfy the nondiscrimination requirement under checklist 
item 4, SWBT must demonstrate that it can efficiently furnish unbundled 
local loops to other carriers within a reasonable time frame, with a 
minimum level of service disruption, and of a quality similar to that 
which it provides for its own retail customers. Nondiscriminatory 
access to unbundled local loops ensures that new entrants can provide 
quality telephone service promptly to new customers without 
constructing new loops to each customer's home or business.
    18. SWBT provides evidence and performance data establishing that 
it can efficiently furnish unbundled loops, for the provision of both 
traditional voice services and various advanced services, to other 
carriers in a nondiscriminatory manner. More specifically, SWBT 
establishes that it provides coordinated cutovers of voice grade loops, 
i.e., hot cuts, to competing carriers in a manner that permits 
efficient competitors to have a meaningful opportunity to compete. 
Through its CHC process, SWBT provisions 93 percent of hot cut lines 
within a one-hour interval, with less than five percent of hot cut 
lines resulting in a service disruption, and with less than two percent 
of hot cut lines the subject of installation trouble reports. In 
addition, SWBT establishes that it provides competing carriers with 
voice grade unbundled loops through new stand-alone loops in 
substantially the same time and manner as SWBT does for its own retail 
services. For both hot cut loops and new stand-alone loops, SWBT 
demonstrates that it

[[Page 42364]]

provides maintenance and repair functions for competing carriers in 
substantially the same time and manner as it provides for SWBT retail 
customers.
    19. SWBT also demonstrates that it provides DSL-capable loops to 
competing carriers in a nondiscriminatory manner. Specifically, SWBT 
demonstrates that for both DSL and BRI loops used for advanced 
services, SWBT provides timely advanced services order processing and 
installation comparable to that which it provides SWBT retail advanced 
services customers. For both DSL and BRI loops, SWBT also demonstrates 
that it provides maintenance and repair functions for competing 
carriers in substantially the same time and manner that it provides 
such services for SWBT retail customers. In addition, SWBT demonstrates 
that it provides high capacity loops (e.g., DS1 loops) to competing 
carriers in a nondiscriminatory manner.
    20. Checklist Item 5--Unbundled Local Transport. Based on the 
evidence in the record, the Commission concludes that SWBT provides 
both shared and dedicated transport in compliance with the requirements 
of this checklist item. The Texas Commission also finds that SWBT is in 
compliance with this checklist item.
    21. Checklist Item 6--Unbundled Local Switching. SWBT satisfies the 
requirements of checklist item 6. A switch connects end user lines to 
other end user lines, and connects end user lines to trunks used for 
transporting a call to another central office or to a long-distance 
carrier. Switches can also provide end users with ``vertical features'' 
such as call waiting, call forwarding, and caller ID, and can direct a 
call to a specific trunk, such as to a competing carrier's operator 
services. We find that SWBT satisfies the requirements of checklist 
item 6, because SWBT demonstrates that it provides competing carriers 
all of the features, functions, and capabilities of the switch.
    22. Checklist Item 7--911/E911/Directory Assistance/Operator 
Services. Based on the evidence submitted in the record, the Commission 
concludes that SWBT demonstrates that it is providing nondiscriminatory 
access to 911/E911 services, and thus satisfies the requirements of 
checklist item 7. We note that no commenter disputes SWBT's compliance 
with this portion of checklist item 7, and the Texas Commission 
concludes that SWBT is providing nondiscriminatory access to 911/E911. 
We further conclude, as the Texas Commission concluded, that SWBT 
provides directory assistance services and operator services in 
accordance with the requirements of this checklist item. We are not 
persuaded by commenters' allegations that SWBT violates the checklist 
by charging competitive LECs non-cost-based rates for access to 
directory assistance listings of customers that reside within its 
region, but outside of Texas. For purposes of this application, we 
consider only whether SWBT meets the requirements of section 271 in the 
State of Texas, not whether SWBT's out-of-state directory assistance 
meets this checklist item.
    23. Checklist Item 8--White Pages Directory Listings. SWBT 
satisfies the requirements of checklist item 8. White pages are the 
directory listings of telephone numbers of residences and businesses in 
a particular area. This checklist item ensures that white pages 
listings for customers of different carriers are comparable, in terms 
of accuracy and reliability, notwithstanding the identity of the 
customer's telephone service provider. SWBT demonstrates that its 
provision of white pages listings to customers of competitive LECs is 
nondiscriminatory in terms of their appearance and integration, and 
that it provides white pages listings for competing carriers' customers 
with the same accuracy and reliability that it provides to its own 
customers.
    24. Checklist Item 9--Numbering Administration. SWBT satisfies the 
requirements of checklist item 9. Telephone numbers are currently 
assigned to telecommunications carriers based on the first three digits 
of the local number, known as ``NXX'' codes. To fulfill the 
nondiscrimination obligation in checklist item 9, SWBT must comply with 
the numbering administration guidelines, plan, or rules. This checklist 
item ensures that other carriers have the same access to new telephone 
numbers as SWBT. SWBT demonstrates that it has adhered to industry 
guidelines and the Commission's requirements.
    25. Checklist Item 10--Databases and Associated Signaling. SWBT 
satisfies the requirements of checklist item 10. Databases and 
associated signaling refer to the call-related databases and signaling 
systems that are used for billing and collection or the transmission, 
routing, or other provision of a telecommunications service. To fulfill 
the nondiscrimination obligation in checklist item 10, SWBT must 
demonstrate that it provides new entrants with the same access to these 
call-related databases and associated signaling that it provides 
itself. This checklist item ensures that other carriers have the same 
ability to transmit, route, complete, and bill for telephone calls as 
SWBT. SWBT demonstrates that it provides other carriers 
nondiscriminatory access to its: (i) Signaling networks, including 
signaling links and signaling transfer points; (ii) certain call-
related databases necessary for call routing and completion or, in the 
alternative, a means of physical access to the signaling transfer point 
linked to the unbundled database; and (iii) Service Management Systems; 
and to design, create, test, and deploy Advanced Intelligent Network 
(AIN) based services at the SMS through a Service Creation Environment.
    26. Checklist Item 11--Number Portability. SWBT satisfies the 
requirements of checklist item 11. Number portability enables consumers 
to take their phone number with them when they change local telephone 
companies. SWBT demonstrates that it provides number portability to 
consumers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience.
    27. Checklist Item 12--Dialing Parity. Based on the evidence in the 
record, we find that SWBT demonstrates that it provides local dialing 
parity in accordance with the requirements of section 251(b)(3) and 
thus satisfies the requirements of this checklist item. Furthermore, 
the Texas Commission concludes that SWBT meets the requirements of this 
checklist obligation.
    28. Checklist Item 13--Reciprocal Compensation. SWBT satisfies the 
requirements of checklist item 13. Pursuant to this checklist item, 
SWBT must compensate other carriers for the cost of transporting and 
terminating a local call from SWBT. Alternatively, SWBT and the other 
carrier may enter into an arrangement whereby neither of the two 
carriers charge the other for terminating local traffic that originates 
on the other carrier's network. This checklist item is important to 
ensuring that all carriers that originate calls bear the cost of 
terminating such calls. SWBT demonstrates that it has reciprocal 
compensation arrangements in accordance with section 252(d)(2), and 
that it is making all required payments in a timely manner.
    29. We believe that SWBT has made a concerted effort to resolve a 
traffic reporting dispute it has had with competing carriers, has 
continued to exchange traffic records with carriers during the course 
of this dispute, and has implemented a reasonable interim traffic 
reporting mechanism while industry groups work toward a permanent 
industry-wide solution. We

[[Page 42365]]

also find that SWBT's Extended Area Service (EAS) additive charge meets 
our reciprocal compensation requirements because EAS additives are 
reciprocal in nature and entirely optional. We also decline to set 
reciprocal compensation rates for Internet-bound traffic from an end 
user.
    30. Checklist Item 14--Resale. SWBT demonstrates that it makes 
telecommunications services available for resale in accordance with 
sections 251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3), and thus satisfies the requirements 
of checklist item 14. This checklist item requires SWBT to offer other 
carriers all of its retail services at wholesale rates without 
unreasonable or discriminatory conditions or limitations so that other 
carriers may resell those services to an end user. This checklist item 
ensures a mode of entry into the local market for carriers that have 
not deployed their own facilities. SWBT also makes its retail 
telecommunications services available for resale without unreasonable 
or discriminatory conditions or limitations. We also find that SWBT 
satisfies the provisioning requirements of checklist item 14. SWBT 
provisions competitive LECs' orders for resale in substantially the 
same time and manner as for its retail customers.
    31. Section 272 Compliance. SWBT demonstrates that it will comply 
with the requirements of section 272. Pursuant to section 271(d)(3), 
SWBT must demonstrate that it will comply with the structural, 
transitional, and nondiscriminatory requirements of section 272, as 
well as certain requirements governing its marketing arrangements. SWBT 
shows that it will provide interLATA telecommunications through 
structurally separate affiliates, and that it will operate in a 
nondiscriminatory manner with respect to these affiliates and 
unaffiliated third parties. In addition, SWBT demonstrates that it will 
comply with public disclosure requirements of section 272, which 
requires SWBT to post on the Internet certain information about 
transactions with its affiliates. Finally, SWBT demonstrates compliance 
with the joint marketing requirements of section 272.
    32. Public Interest Standard. We conclude that approval of this 
application is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity. While no single factor is dispositive in our public interest 
analysis, our overriding goal is to ensure that nothing undermines our 
conclusion, based on our analysis of checklist compliance, that markets 
are open to competition. We note that a strong public interest showing 
cannot overcome failure to demonstrate compliance with one or more 
checklist items.
    33. Among other factors, we may review the local and long distance 
markets to ensure that there are not unusual circumstances that would 
make entry contrary to the public interest under the particular 
circumstances of this Application. We find that, consistent with our 
extensive review of the competitive checklist, barriers to competitive 
entry in the local market have been removed and the local exchange 
market today is open to competition. We also find that the record 
confirms our view that a Bell Operating Company's (BOC's) entry into 
the long distance market will benefit consumers and competition if the 
relevant local exchange market is open to competition consistent with 
the competitive checklist.
    34. Another factor that could be relevant to our analysis is 
whether we lack sufficient assurance that markets will remain open 
after grant of the application. We find that the performance monitoring 
and enforcement mechanisms developed in Texas, in combination with 
other factors, provide meaningful assurance that SWBT will continue to 
satisfy the requirements of section 271 after entering the long 
distance market. Where, as here, a BOC relies on performance monitoring 
and enforcement mechanisms to provide such assurance, we review the 
mechanisms involved to ensure that they are likely to perform as 
promised. We conclude that these mechanisms have a reasonable design 
and are likely to provide incentives sufficient to foster post-entry 
checklist compliance.
    35. Section 271(d)(6) Enforcement Authority. Congress sought to 
create incentives for BOCs to cooperate with competitors by withholding 
long distance authorization until they satisfy various conditions 
related to local competition. We note that these incentives may 
diminish with respect to a given state once a BOC receives 
authorization to provide interLATA service in that state. The statute 
nonetheless mandates that a BOC comply fully with section 271's 
requirements both before and after it receives approval from the 
Commission and competes in the interLATA market. Working in concert 
with state commissions, we intend to monitor closely post-entry 
compliance and to enforce vigorously the provisions of section 271 
using the various enforcement tools Congress provided us in the 
Communications Act. Swift and effective post-approval enforcement of 
section 271's requirements is essential to Congress' goal of achieving 
last competition in local markets.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-17287 Filed 7-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P