Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2004 / Notices 57293

equity within five days of registration or 

receipt of the disclosure forms. These 

requirements will provide the 

Commission and the NANC with the 

ability to continually monitor NeuStar’s 

neutrality. 

D. NANPA Solicitation 

29. Some commenters suggest that 

eliminating the prior approval 

requirements for certain transactions 

requires rebidding the NANPA contract. 

We disagree. The requested changes do 

not constitute a material change to the 

scope of the original contract. NeuStar 

has not requested a change to its 

responsibilities as the NANPA or to the 

costs of its services. Nor does the relief 

granted to NeuStar in this Order change 

its ability to serve as a neutral 

numbering administrator. Rather, as 

discussed above, the basic statutory and 

regulatory neutrality requirements that 

apply to the NANPA remain intact. For 

these reasons, therefore, we do not 

believe that the scope of the current 

NANPA contract requirements have 

been exceeded so as to require 

rebidding. 

30. CTIA and Syniverse also claim 

that potential bidders were deterred 

from participating in the original 

procurement due to the prior approval 

restrictions on ownership changes 

imposed by the Warburg Transfer Order. 

Again, we disagree. The requirements 

established in the Warburg Transfer 

Order and the Bureau Letter was 

designed to cure the specific neutrality 

conflicts that Lockheed and NeuStar 

faced. Any uncertainty regarding the 

applicability of those requirements to 

others could and should have been 

raised during the NANPA solicitation 

process when potential bidders were 

given an opportunity to obtain 

clarification of the RFP requirements. In 

fact, such questions were raised. In 

response to questions addressing the 

reach of the Warburg Transfer Order, 

the Commission stated, ‘‘Generally, the 

neutrality rules, requirements and 

policies will continue to apply to any 

entity selected as the NANPA’’ and that 

the ‘‘terms and conditions placed on 

NeuStar in the Lockheed Martin

[Warburg] Transfer Order would 

continue with respect to NeuStar if it 

were selected as the NANPA for the 

next term.’’ The Commission further 

explained that ‘‘Bidders cannot assume, 

however, that the FCC would find the 

same terms and conditions would cure 

a potential or actual violation of the 

neutrality provisions with respect to a 

different situation or entity.’’ Thus, 

while the Commission clarified that the 

same types of prior approval restrictions 

contained in the Warburg Transfer 

Order could be imposed on other 

bidders found in violation of a 

neutrality requirement, the 

Commission’s own statements belie any 

basis for the presumption that all such 

restrictions applied to all bidders in all 

situations. 

31. In this same vein, we reject claims 

made that because the actions taken in 

this Order remove alleged restrictions 

on public companies serving as the 

NANPA, rebidding the NANPA 

functions is required. Consistent with 

the analysis set forth above, any 

questions concerning the applicability 

of the requirements of the Warburg 

Transfer Order to this issue could and 

should have been raised during the 

solicitation process. In fact, such issues 

were raised and the Commission’s 

response did not foreclose a public 

company from serving as the NANPA, a 

result made obvious by the fact that a 

public company did bid for the NANPA 

contract. We also find that the public 

interest is not served by rebidding the 

NANPA functions because an entity 

may have mistakenly believed a public 

company could not serve as the 

NANPA. Rebidding the contract is 

neither necessitated nor warranted, 

especially since NeuStar is meeting the 

requirements of its contract and any 

interested party had an opportunity to 

participate during the last solicitation. 

32. We also reject Syniverse’s claim 

that eliminating the prior approval 

requirement for certain transactions 

increased the value of the NANPA 

contract. Syniverse suggests that the 

value of the contract is increased as a 

result of the elimination of certain prior 

approval restrictions. According to 

Syniverse, this ‘‘windfall’’ value should 

not benefit NeuStar. In order for 

Syniverse’s argument to have any 

validity, we would have to conclude 

that the eliminated restrictions hold 

some definitive dollar value and that 

this value would be translated into a 

reduced contract price. Syniverse does 

not provide evidence of NeuStar’s 

purported increased value or a 

mechanism for establishing that value. 

Nor does Syniverse adequately 

demonstrate that changing the prior 

approval requirements would 

necessarily result in a lower contract 

price. Because Syniverse’s contention is 

highly speculative, we find it to be 

without merit. 

33. We strongly reject Syniverse’s 

claim that ‘‘the Commission would 

utterly undermine the integrity of its 

procurements’’ if NeuStar is granted the 

relief it requested without any evidence 

that it needs such relief ‘‘in order to 

perform its contractual obligations’’ or 

that granting the relief requested 

violated the procurement process. 

Whether or not NeuStar needs the relief 

requested to perform its contractual 

obligations is irrelevant to our analysis 

here. Rather, we focus on whether the 

relief requested would adversely impact 

NeuStar’s ability to serve as a neutral 

numbering administrator. Our actions in 

this order in no way compromise the 

integrity of that process. In addition, 

Syniverse fails to provide specific 

evidence of a violation of the 

procurement process we used to select 

the NANPA. Because, as discussed 

above, NeuStar’s request as modified 

herein, does not affect its ability to serve 

as a neutral numbering administrator we 

see no reason why the NANPA cannot 

make changes to its business plan that 

do not impact its neutrality. 

34. Finally, Syniverse contends that 

the Commission should rebid the 

NANPA contract at the end of the 

current period if NeuStar chooses to 

make the requested changes to its 

ownership structure. We disagree. The 

decision whether or not to renew the 

option is not currently before the 

Commission. The factors that might 

impact a decision to exercise the option 

are specifically set forth in section 

17.207 of the FAR and will be evaluated 

by the contracting officer at the time the 

option is to be exercised. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

35. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 

1, 4, and 251 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

154 and 251 this order is adopted. 

36. It is further ordered that the 

request of NeuStar, Inc., perform certain 

changes and transactions that do not 

affect its neutrality, without prior 

Federal Communications Commission 

approval, is granted, in part, to the 

extent set forth herein.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–21413 Filed 9–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Diversity for 

Communications in the Digital Age; 

Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 

Law 92–463, as amended, this notice 

advises interested persons that the 

57294 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2004 / Notices 

Advisory Committee on Diversity for 

Communications in the Digital Age is 

holding its fourth meeting, which will 

be held by teleconference. The meeting 

is scheduled, on an expedited basis, for 

October 4, 2004. Under 41 CFR 102–

3.150, the Commission is holding this 

meeting with less than 15 calendar days 

notice due to exceptional 

circumstances, specifically to address 

time-sensitive resolutions. Because of 

these special circumstances, the 

Committee took the step, even prior to 

the date of this Notice, of placing copies 

of the proposed resolutions on the FAC 

Web site and inviting Committee 

members by e-mail to submit comments 

for the public record. Any comments 

that are submitted will be made 

available on the Web site, which is 

accessible to the public. 

The Committee also notes that, 

effective September 27, 2004, Linda 

Blair will serve as the Designated 

Federal Officer.

DATES: October 4, 2004, 3 p.m., to 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Blair, Designated Federal Officer 

of the Committee on Diversity, or 

Maureen C. McLaughlin, Alternate 

Designated Federal Officer of the 

Committee on Diversity, 202–418–2030, 

e-mail Linda.Blair@fcc.gov, 

Maureen.Mclaughlin@fcc.gov. Press 

Contact, Audrey Spivak, Office of Public 

Affairs, 202–418–0512, aspivak@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Diversity Committee was established by 

the Federal Communications 

Commission to examine current 

opportunities and develop 

recommendations for policies and 

practices that will further enhance the 

ability of minorities and women to 

participate in telecommunications and 

related industries. The Diversity 

Committee will prepare periodic and 

final reports to aid the FCC in its 

oversight responsibilities and its 

regulatory reviews in this area. In 

conjunction with such reports and 

analyses, the Diversity Committee will 

make recommendations to the FCC 

concerning the need for any guidelines, 

incentives, regulations or other policy 

approaches to promote diversity of 

participation in the communications 

sector. The Diversity Committee will 

also develop a description of best 

practices within the communications 

sector for promoting diversity of 

participation. 

Agenda 

The purpose of the meeting is to 

discuss two proposals: (1) A resolution 

urging the FCC to enforce its existing 

Designated Entity rules, including the 

rules setting aside certain C-Block 

broadband PCS spectrum for bidding 

only by ‘‘entrepreneurial’’ companies 

(i.e., small, minority or women-owned 

companies whose gross revenues and 

total assets are less than $125 million 

and $500 million, respectively); and (2) 

a resolution urging the FCC to adopt an 

NPRM seeking comment on ways to 

foster ownership diversity in the 

commercial FM radio band (92.1–107.9 

mHz). More details on these resolutions 

are available on the Advisory 

Committee’s Web site at http://

www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC. Members of 

the Advisory Committee and the public 

may submit written comments at any 

time by following the instructions on the 

Web site. 

Public Participation 

Interested persons may contact Kevin 

Venters, (202) 418–2030, to obtain a 

number to call to participate in the 

teleconference, or may join the 

teleconference at the Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Commission Meeting Room, Room TW–

A402 and TW–A442, 445 12th St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

attempt to accommodate as many 

people as possible. However, 

admittance will be limited to the seating 

available. A live RealAudio feed will be 

available over the Internet; information 

on how to tune in can be found at the 

Commission’s Web site, http://

www.fcc.gov.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Jane E. Mago, 

Designated Federal Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–21505 Filed 9–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary, Office of the 

General Counsel; Notice Regarding the 

Federal Tort Claims Act, the Federally 

Supported Health Centers Assistance 

Act, and the Indian Self-Determination 

and Education Assistance Act; 

Alternative Settlement Process for 

Certain Administrative Claims Under 

the Federal Tort Claims Act

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice of Pilot Program for an 

Alternative Settlement Process for 

Certain Administrative Claims Under 

the Federal Tort Claims Act. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Health and 

Human Services is implementing a Pilot 

Program to study the effectiveness of an 

Early Offers Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Process (‘‘Early Offers’’) for 

certain administrative tort claims under 

the Federal Tort Claims Act (‘‘FTCA’’). 

The Pilot Program becomes effective 

upon the publication of this Notice and 

will be applicable to administrative 

claims filed with the Department of 

Health and Human Services (‘‘HHS’’ or 

‘‘the Department’’) on or after the 

publication date. The Pilot Program 

applies to all medical negligence tort 

claims cognizable under the FTCA and 

arising from the acts or omissions of 

HHS employees or deemed employees. 

The Pilot Program does not create new 

causes of action or change the 

requirements of the FTCA for the 

handling of administrative tort claims or 

the approval of administrative tort claim 

settlements. See 28 U.S.C. 2672 and 28 

CFR Part 14.

DATES: This notice is effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Bergeron, Office of the General 

Counsel, (202) 619–0150, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, 330 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Room 4760, Washington, DC 

20201.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Introduction 

The FTCA mandates that 

administrative tort claims arising out of 

the medical negligence of HHS 

employees and deemed employees must 

be submitted to HHS for investigation 

and potential resolution before a lawsuit 

can be filed against the United States. 28 

U.S.C. 1346(b) and 2671, et seq. Medical 

negligence claims against HHS may 

arise from acts or omissions of HHS 

employees (see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 233(a)) or 

from the acts or omissions of deemed 

employees of HHS (see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 

233(g); 25 U.S.C. 450f(d)). The 

resolution of those administrative 

claims requires the claimant and HHS to 

engage in negotiations that often include 

a number of offers and counteroffers, 

sometimes over the course of a number 

of months, and, then, if such 

negotiations are unsuccessful, the filing 

of a lawsuit against the United States. 

The Early Offers Pilot Program is 

designed to determine whether there is 

a better, quicker, less expensive method 

for resolving medical negligence claims. 

The Pilot Program applies to all medical 

negligence tort claims asserted under 

the FTCA and arising from the acts or 

omissions of HHS employees or deemed 

employees. The Pilot Program is a 

voluntary program available to 

claimants who submit timely tort claims 

under the FTCA. If a claim is not settled