[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42211-42215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15676]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 53, 32, and 64

[WC Docket No. 02-112; FCC 02-148]


Section 272(f)(1) Sunset of the BOC Separate Affiliate and 
Related Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document initiates an inquiry regarding the sunset of the 
statutory requirements under section 272 imposed on Bell Operating 
Companies (BOCs) when they provide in-region, interLATA services and 
seeks comment on whether, and if so, under what conditions, the 
structural and nondiscrimination safeguards established in section 272 
should be extended by the Commission either generally or with respect 
to specific states.

DATES: Comments are due July 22, 2002 and Reply Comments are due August 
12, 2002. It is also available on the Commission's website at http://www.fcc.gov. Written comments by the public on the proposed information 
collections are due July 22, 2002. Written comments must be submitted 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed 
information collection(s) on or before August 20, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing 
comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information 
collections contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, 
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to 
Jeanette Thornton, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, 
NW, Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Pabo, Legal Assistant to the 
Chief, Competition Policy Division, or Jack Yachbes, Attorney Advisor, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1580. The complete text of 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is available for inspection 
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. Further information may also be obtained by 
calling the Common Carrier Bureau's TTY number: (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 02-112, FCC 02-148, adopted May 
16, 2002, and released May 24, 2002. This full text may be purchased 
from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 
telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail 
[email protected]. Comments may be filed using the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 
(1998).
    Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file 
via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. 
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If 
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of 
the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the 
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should 
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for 
e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and 
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get 
form .'' A sample form and directions 
will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or

[[Page 42212]]

rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, 
Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 
paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts 
Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this 
location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held 
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed 
of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than 
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 
9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service 
first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed 
to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) contains proposed 
information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and 
other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed 
information collections contained in this proceeding. This NPRM 
contains a proposed information collection. The Commission, as part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general 
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 
information collection(s) contained in this NPRM, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency 
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB 
notification of action is due August 20, 2002. Comments should address: 
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including 
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy 
of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0734.
    Title: Accounting Safeguards, CC Docket No. 96-150, 47 U.S.C. 
Sections 260 and 271-276, and 47 CFR Sections 53.209, 53.211 and 
53.213.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: Proposed Revised Collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of    Estimated time   Total annual
                              Title                                 respondents    per response       burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliate Transactions Rules/Estimated Fair Market Value--                    20           24                480
 Recordkeeping Requirements.....................................
Section 272(b)(2)--Affiliated Company Books, Records and                      20         6056.25         121,125
 Accounts.......................................................
Section 272(b)(5)--Arm's Length Requirement.....................               7           72                504
Biennial Federal/State Audit, Audit Planning, and Analysis and                 7          250               1750
 Evaluation.....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Burden: 123,859 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $632,500.
    Needs and Uses: In a Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-150, the 
Commission prescribed the way ILECs, including the BOCs, must account 
for transactions with affiliates involving, and allocate costs incurred 
in the provision of, both regulated telecommunications services and 
nonregulated services, including telemessaging, interLATA 
telecommunications and information services, telecommunications 
equipment and CPE manufacturing and others pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 
sections 260 and 271 through 276. The Commission has issued a NPRM 
solicits comment regarding the sunset of the statutory requirements in 
47 U.S.C. section 272.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

    1. Section 272(f)(1) provides that the provisions of that section, 
with one exception, expire three years after a BOC or any BOC affiliate 
is authorized under section 271 to provide in-region, interLATA 
services, ``unless the Commission extends such 3-year period by rule or 
order.'' In this NPRM, the Commission seeks to develop a full record so 
that it may properly assess: (1) Whether the structural safeguards 
established in section 272 should be extended by the Commission, either 
generally or with respect to specific states, despite the three-year 
sunset provision in the statute; and (2) to the extent we conclude the 
costs of continued application of those statutory requirements outweigh 
the benefits, the Commission seeks comment on whether any alternative 
safeguards should be put in place in states where the statutory 
requirements have sunset.
    2. Background. Section 272 of the Act requires that the BOCs 
initially provide in-region, interLATA service through a separate 
corporate affiliate and comply with certain nondiscrimination 
requirements set forth in the statute. In addition, section 272(d) 
requires that a BOC obtain and pay for a biennial joint federal/state 
audit after section 271 approval to determine whether it has complied 
with section 272. The Commission adopted rules to implement the 
statutory requirements of section 272 in the Accounting Safeguards 
Order (67 FR 5670, February 6, 2002) and the Non-Accounting Safeguards 
Order (66 FR 36206, December 3, 2001). In the Non-Accounting Safeguards 
Order, the Commission found that the BOCs have market power in the 
provision of local exchange and exchange access services within their 
service areas. In particular, the Commission found the BOCs to be 
dominant carriers with the incentive and ability to discriminate in 
providing exchange access services and facilities that their 
interexchange competitors need to compete in the interLATA 
telecommunications services markets.
    3. Section 272 (c) and (e) impose nondiscrimination safeguards on 
the BOC. Under section 272 and our implementing rules, a BOC and its 
section 272 affiliate may not jointly own transmission and switching 
equipment. The BOC may not perform any operating, installation, or 
maintenance functions for facilities owned or leased by the section 272 
affiliate, and the section 272 affiliate may not perform any such 
functions on BOC facilities. The separate 272 affiliate must maintain 
separate books of account and have separate officers and directors. The 
separate 272 affiliate may not obtain

[[Page 42213]]

credit under arrangements that would permit the creditor to look to the 
assets of the BOC. The section 272 affiliate must conduct all 
transactions with the BOC on an arm's length basis, pursuant to the 
Commission's affiliate transaction rules, with any such transactions 
reduced to writing and available for public inspection. Specifically, 
the separate affiliate must post on the Internet within ten days of a 
transaction a detailed written description of the asset or service and 
the terms and conditions of the transaction. Section 272(d) requires a 
biennial audit post-entry to ensure compliance with the structural and 
transactional requirements of section 272.
    4. Section 272(f)(1) provides that the provisions of the section, 
except for section 272(e), expire three years after a BOC or any BOC 
affiliate is authorized under section 271 to provide in-region, 
interLATA services, ``unless the Commission extends such 3-year period 
by rule or order.''
    5. Section 271 approval is provided on a state-by-state basis. As 
such, the sunset dates for each BOC will vary depending upon when each 
state receives section 271 approval. Verizon's New York section 272 
requirements will sunset in December of 2002, and SBC's Texas section 
272 requirements will sunset in June of 2003, unless the Commission 
acts to extend them.
    6. Discussion. In this NPRM, the Commission invites parties to 
comment on the sunset provisions of section 272. It asks whether, and, 
if so, under what conditions, the structural and nondiscrimination 
safeguards established should be extended by the Commission either 
generally or with respect to specific states, despite the three-year 
sunset in the statute. The Commission also seeks comment on what, if 
any, alternative safeguards should apply to BOC provisioning of in-
region, interLATA, interexchange services in states where the statutory 
requirements have sunset.
    7. Procedural Framework for Evaluating Sunset. Pursuant to the 
statute, the requirements of section 272 (except for subsection (e)) 
sunset three years after section 271 authorization unless extended by 
rule or order. The threshold question for the Commission is how it 
should evaluate whether these requirements of section 272 should sunset 
after three years or, alternatively, be extended. In particular, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a rule of general 
applicability or should proceed by examining each state on a case-by-
case basis. If it were to proceed on a case-by-case basis, what would 
be the nature of the proceeding? How far in advance of the sunset date 
should the Commission commence the proceeding?
    8. The Commission seeks comment on what information it should 
consider in evaluating whether the statutory requirements should sunset 
after three years. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on 
marketplace developments, but asks more generally what factors it 
should consider in undertaking this inquiry.
    9. Marketplace Developments. In order to assess the statutory 
sunset, the Commission seeks comment on the nature of the marketplace 
three years post-entry. The Commission recognizes that the market 
opening requirements of the 1996 Act are designed to bring the benefits 
of competition to consumers in all markets. In enacting 272, Congress 
recognized that the local exchange market would not be fully 
competitive upon its opening. At the same time, Congress clearly 
contemplated that competitors would be entering the local market, and 
thereby would provide alternative sources of local exchange and 
originating access services. To the extent such alternatives exist in 
the marketplace, the BOCs should be constrained in their ability to 
discriminate against competing providers of interexchange service. How 
should these and other developments inform the Commission's 
consideration? Have circumstances changed in three years to support the 
sunset of statutory requirements? Has competition continued to develop 
in states where section 271 applications have been granted and, if so, 
on which geographic areas or types of customers has that competition 
been focused? What significance should the Commission place on such 
evidence in determining how to address the section 272 sunset?
    10. The Commission to date has approved thirteen section 271 
applications. It asks the BOCs to identify their section 272 
affiliates; describe the services provided by each; and discuss why 
they have chosen to establish multiple affiliates. The Commission also 
asks interested parties to comment on the direct and indirect costs of 
continued application of the statutory requirements beyond three years. 
Would continued application of the statutory safeguards affect 
competition in the interexchange marketplace?
    11. The purpose of the separate affiliate and nondiscrimination 
requirements in section 272 is to lessen the ability of a BOC to 
discriminate and/or misallocate costs to the advantage of its own 
operations, and to make it easier to detect any such behavior. In 
evaluating alternatives, how should the Commission take into account 
the unique statutory treatment of the BOCs and their size? What 
evidence is there of such behavior and on what evidence should the 
Commission rely? For example, have there been complaints at either the 
federal or state level of such behavior, and, if so, do the data show 
that complaints have increased or decreased? Should the Commission take 
into account whether complaints have increased or decreased, or rely 
only on final regulatory or judicial findings of discrimination? Is 
there evidence that BOCs' wholesale performance has deteriorated or 
improved since grant of a section 271 application and should the 
Commission rely on allegations that a BOC has ceased to meet the 
conditions of its section 271 approval or Commission findings that such 
backsliding has occurred? Should the Commission rely on BOCs' 
performance under the state-approved performance plans?
    12. The first section 272 biennial audits have been performed by 
independent auditors both for Verizon and SBC. The purpose of the audit 
under section 272 is to determine whether the BOCs are abiding by the 
separate affiliate and nondiscrimination requirements. The Commission 
asks that parties address whether factual findings contained in audit 
reports should in any way inform the sunset decision, and if so, how? 
For example, if audits were to reveal no patterns of discriminatory 
behavior, would that weigh in favor of permitting section 272 to 
sunset? Alternatively, if audits were to provide the Commission with 
evidence of clear patterns of BOC discriminatory behavior, might that 
weigh in favor of continuing the separate affiliate requirements, 
either generally, or with respect to that BOC?
    13. Alternative Approaches. In evaluating how to proceed under 
section 272(f)(1), there are a range of options before the Commission. 
As discussed more fully in the NPRM, those options include, but are not 
limited to: (1) Allow the statutory requirements to sunset three years 
after section 271 authorization; (2) extend the statutory requirements 
for a defined period of time for all BOCs; (3) allow the statutory 
requirements to sunset after three years, but adopt less stringent 
structural separation requirements; (4) allow the statutory separate 
affiliate requirements to sunset, but retain the statutory biennial 
audit requirements; or (5) allow the statutory requirements to sunset 
after three years, but adopt some form of nonstructural safeguards, 
such as reporting requirements. The

[[Page 42214]]

Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of each of these 
alternatives, and invites commenters to suggest other alternatives. It 
asks commenters to address how our cost-benefit analysis for each 
alternative should take into account the fact that the BOC will still 
be required to use a separate affiliate in states where the sunset date 
has not yet occurred. Additionally, the Commisson seeks comment on a 
BOC-specific approach, whereby discriminatory behavior may lead to 
targeted retention of requirements in specific states. Finally, the 
Commission asks commenters to address how other proceedings currently 
underway, should inform our analysis.
    14. The statute provides that most section 272 requirements will 
sunset three years after section 271 authorization, absent further 
Commission action. The Commission seeks comment on this sunset 
alternative. In particular, it seeks comment on the sufficiency of such 
a framework. Does the Commission have sufficient tools under pre-
existing rules to address any residual concerns about cost 
misallocation and discrimination by the BOCs?
    15. Under the Commission's current rules, the second biennial audit 
results for a particular state will not be available until after the 
three year statutory period has passed. Should the Commission permit 
the statutory requirements to sunset in a particular state prior to the 
completion of the second biennial audit? Furthermore, the Commission 
seeks comment on the interrelationship between the sunset provision and 
section 272(e) of the Act. Section 272(e) states that a BOC affiliate 
subject to section 251(c) ``shall fulfill any requests from an 
unaffiliated entity for telephone exchange services and exchange access 
within a period no longer that the period in which it provides such 
telephone exchange service and exchange access to itself or to its 
affiliates.'' The Commission recognizes on the one hand, that both 
sections 272(e)(2) and (e)(4) could be interpreted as subject to the 
sunset provision because they depend on the existence of a separate 
affiliate. On the other hand, the Commission found that section 272(f) 
specifically exempts section 272(e) from the sunset requirements. The 
Commission held that section 272(e)(2) and (e)(4) ``can be applied to a 
BOC after sunset only if that BOC retains a separate affiliate.'' 
Should the Commission reconsider this conclusion? If so, as a practical 
matter, how would these requirements be applied in the absence of a 
separate affiliate? Would continued application of these 
nondiscriminatory requirements, or ones similar to these, be sufficient 
to constrain potential anti-competitive behavior by a BOC in the 
absence of a separate affiliate?
    16. In evaluating whether to extend the statutory requirements, the 
Commission is interested in the costs of continued application of the 
section 272 requirements. How should it take into account the fact that 
a number of BOCs have chosen to establish multiple section 272 
affiliates? The Commission asks parties to address the efficiency loss 
and other possible business costs associated with the prohibition of 
joint ownership of facilities. The Commission further asks parties to 
identify any other administrative, regulatory or economic costs 
associated with use of a separate affiliate. What are the costs and 
benefits of requiring the BOCs to post all transactions on the 
Internet?
    17. What would be an appropriate time period, should the Commission 
decide to extend the statutory requirements--three more years or 
something shorter? For example, should we consider extending the 
statutory requirements long enough to receive the results of the second 
biennial audit for a particular state? Would extending these 
requirements assist in protecting interexchange competition and 
consumer choice? What conditions would warrant adoption of alternative, 
less stringent structural separation requirements? If the Commission 
were to conclude that some less burdensome set of structural safeguards 
should be put in place, what would such a more limited set of 
alternative safeguards be? Should we require BOCs to establish a 
separate subsidiary that follows the provisions established in the 
Competitive Carrier Fifth Report and Order (49 FR 34824, October 23, 
1998)? Sections 272(e)(1) and (e)(3) continue to exist even if the 
other requirements of section 272 have sunset. In that vein, the 
Commission asks for comment on how it should ensure compliance with 
those provisions, and whether there may be a need for some form of 
biennial audit on these discrete requirements even after the other 
section 272 requirements have sunset.
    18. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should replace the 
separate corporate affiliate requirements with nonstructural 
safeguards. It asks that parties comment on what, if any, requirements 
or mechanisms may be established as a form of nonstructural safeguard 
in order to facilitate the detection of discrimination against 
competing interexchange carriers and cost misallocation. For example, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether it should impose reporting and/
or other nonstructural safeguard requirements on BOCs. What effect, if 
any, would these safeguards have on preventing cost misallocation, 
price and non-price discrimination, or a price squeeze? Section 
272(e)(3), which does not sunset, requires the BOCs to impute an amount 
for access no less than that charged to interexchange competitors . 
Does the Commission need to adopt any rules to implement this 
imputation requirement?
    19. The Commission recently released two Notices addressing 
national performance measurements and standards, including the Special 
Access Measurements and Standards proceeding. (66 FR 59759, December 
17, 2001 and 66 FR 63651, December 10, 2001) The Commission asks that 
parties comment on whether adoption of measures considered in the 
Special Access proceeding would provide an adequate safeguard, should 
the section 272 requirements sunset. To what extent, if any, would 
these performance measurements, if adopted, serve as an effective 
mechanism in identifying BOC discriminatory behavior?
    20. Other Issues. The Commission seeks comment on what enforcement 
tools would be available to it, should the statutory requirements 
sunset. Should the Commission decide to allow the statutory 
requirements to sunset, would section 271(d) be available to address 
instances of potential discrimination or cost misallocation? If the 
Commission were to adopt less intrusive safeguards in lieu of the 
statutory requirements, should it adopt mechanisms for modifying or 
removing these safeguards in the future? The Commission seeks comment 
on two alternatives. First, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
BOCs should petition for relief from any safeguards adopted, based on a 
specific showing, e.g., that their market power over the local exchange 
and exchange access market has eroded. Second, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether to set a defined time period for revisiting any 
safeguards adopted, in order to determine the necessity for and cost 
effectiveness of maintaining such safeguards.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    21. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 
requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared 
for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency 
certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial

[[Page 42215]]

number of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines the term ``small 
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' 
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In 
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term 
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small 
business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and 
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    22. In the context of this Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, SBA 
regulations define small telecommunications entities in SIC code 4813 
(Telephone Companies Except Radio Telephone) as entities with fewer 
than 1,500 employees. This NPRM initiates an inquiry concerning the 
sunset of the statutory requirements under section 272 that apply to 
the BOCs when they provide in-region, interLATA services. In 
particular, this NPRM seeks to develop a full record so that the 
Commission may properly assess, as contemplated by the statute: (1) 
Whether the structural safeguards and nondiscrimination requirements 
applied to the BOCs by section 272 should be extended by the 
Commission, despite the three-year sunset provision in the statute; and 
(2) whether any alternative safeguards should be put in place for the 
BOCs in states where the statutory requirements have sunset.
    23. The issues under consideration in this proceeding directly 
affect only the BOCs and their affiliates, which do not qualify as 
small entities under the RFA. In particular, none of the BOCs is a 
small entity because each BOC is an affiliate of a Regional Holding 
Company (RHC), and all of the BOCs or their RHCs have more than 1,500 
employees. Insofar as this proceeding applies to other BOC or RHC 
affiliates, those affiliates are controlled by the BOCs or by the RHC. 
Accordingly, they are not ``independently owned and operated'' entities 
for purposes of the RFA.
    24. Therefore, the proposals in this NPRM, if adopted, will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including a copy 
of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. This Initial 
Certification will also be published in the Federal Register.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    25. None.

Ordering Clauses

    26. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 
2, 4(i)-4(j), 201, 202, 205, 251, 271, 272, and 303(r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-
4(j), 201, 202, 205, 251, 271, 272, and 303(r), this NPRM is adopted.
    27. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, Shall send a copy of this NPRM, including 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-15676 Filed 6-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P