Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33787

bar grade retention for all employees in

or moving from non-GS/FWS pay

systems.)

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review

This rule has been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget in

accordance with Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations would

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

because they would only apply to

Federal agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 536

Administrative practice and

procedure, Freedom of information,

Government employees, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

Accordingly, OPM is proposing to

amend part 536 of title 5 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 536—GRADE AND PAY

RETENTION

1. The authority citation for part 536

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5361–5366; sec. 7202(f)

of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1990 (Pub. L. 101–508), 104 Stat. 1338–336;

sec. 4 of the Performance Management and

Recognition System Termination Act of 1993

(Pub. L. 103–89), 107 Stat. 981; § 536.307 also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 552, Freedom of

Information Act, Pub. L. 92–502.

Subpart A—Definitions; Coverage and

Applicability

2. In § 536.102, the definition of

Representative rate is amended by

adding ‘‘or’’ after the semicolon at the

end of paragraph (1), removing the ‘‘or’’

at the end of paragraph (2), and

replacing the semicolon with a period,

and removing paragraph (3); and the

definition of employee is revised to read

as follows:

§ 536.102 Definitions.

* * * * *

Employee means an employee as

defined in 5 U.S.C. 5361 and also an

individual who moves from a position

which is not under a statutorily covered

pay schedule to a position which is

under a statutorily covered pay

schedule, provided that the individual’s

employment immediately prior to the

move was not on a temporary or term

basis. Employee also means an

employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105

who is granted pay retention under

§ 536.104(d), subject to the limitations

set forth in this part. However,

employee does not include an official in

or moving from an Executive Schedule

position.

* * * * *

3. In § 536.104, a new paragraph (d)

is added to read as follows:

§ 536.104 Coverage and applicability of

pay retention.

* * * * *

(d) The head of an agency may apply

the pay retention provisions of this part

to an individual not under a statutorily

covered pay schedule (as defined in 5

U.S.C. 5361) whose rate of basic pay

would otherwise be reduced as the

result of a management action, provided

that individual is an employee as

defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 (excluding an

official in or moving from an Executive

Schedule position). Coverage is subject

to all other qualifying conditions and

limitations established in this part.

4. In § 536.105, paragraph (a)(1) is

removed, paragraphs (a)(2) through

(a)(5) are redesignated as (a)(1) through

(a)(4), respectively, and paragraph (c) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 536.105 Exclusions.

* * * * *

(c) Grade retention under § 536.103

does not apply to an employee who—

(1) Moves to a position not under a

statutorily covered pay schedule; or

(2) Moves from a position not under

a statutorily covered pay schedule to a

position under a statutorily covered pay

schedule.

5. Section 536.203 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 536.203 Determination of retained grade.

An employee who is in a position

under a statutorily covered pay

schedule immediately prior to the

action that gives entitlement to grade

retention shall retain the grade held

immediately prior to the action.

6. In § 536.205, paragraphs (c) and (g)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 536.205 Determination of rate of basic

pay.

* * * * *

(c) When an increase in the scheduled

rates of the grade of the employee’s

position occurs while the employee is

under pay retention, the employee is

entitled to 50 percent of the amount of

the increase in the maximum rate of

basic pay payable for the grade of the

employee’s current position. This

paragraph does not apply to employees

who move from a noncovered pay

schedule to a statutorily covered pay

schedule and who are receiving a

retained rate in excess of the maximum

payable rate of the applicable covered

pay schedule.

* * * * *

(g) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b),

(c), and (d) of this section, for an

employee who is not in a position under

a statutorily covered pay schedule while

receiving a retained rate (as allowed by

§ 536.104(d))—

(1) The retained rate is compared to

the rate of basic pay that otherwise

would apply to the employee but for the

retained rate (instead of comparing it to

the maximum rate of the rate range for

the employee’s position) and is

terminated when the retained rate falls

below the employee’s otherwise

applicable rate;

(2) The retained rate is capped at 150

percent of the rate of basic pay that

otherwise would apply to the employee

but for the retained rate (instead of 150

percent of the maximum rate of the rate

range for the employee’s position); and

(3) The retained rate is frozen and

may not be increased.

[FR Doc. 00–13052 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service

7 CFR Part 1735

RIN 0572–AB56

General Policies, Types of Loans, Loan

Requirements—Telecommunications

Program

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service

(RUS) is proposing to amend its

regulations to update the criteria for

determining ‘‘reasonably adequate

service’’ levels for local exchange

carriers and providers of specialized

telecommunications service. This

supplemental proposed rule is part of an

ongoing RUS project to modernize

agency policies in order to provide

borrowers with the flexibility to

continue providing reliable, modern

telephone service at reasonable costs in

rural areas, while maintaining the

security and feasibility of the

Government’s loans.

DATES: Written comments on this

supplemental proposed rule must be

received by RUS by or carry a postmark

or equivalent of June 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

on this supplemental proposed rule to

Roberta D. Purcell, Assistant

Administrator, Telecommunications

33788 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Program, Rural Utilities Service, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW., Room

4056, STOP 1590, Washington, DC

20250–1590. RUS requires a signed

original and three copies of all

comments (7 CFR part 1700.4). All

comments received will be available for

public inspection in room 4056, South

Building, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC, between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday

(7 CFR part 1.27(b)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan P. Claffey, Deputy Assistant

Administrator, Telecommunications

Program, Rural Utilities Service, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW., Room

4056, STOP 1590, Washington, DC

20250–1590. Telephone: (202) 720–

9556.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant and,

therefore, has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed

in accordance with Executive Order

12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS has

determined that this proposed rule

meets the applicable standards provided

in section 3 of that Executive Order. In

addition, all State and local laws and

regulations that are in conflict with this

rule will be preempted; no retroactive

effect will be given to this rule; and in

accordance with section 212(e) of the

Department of Agriculture

Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.

6912(e)) administrative appeal

procedures, if any are required, must be

exhausted prior to initiating litigation

against the Department or its agencies.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

RUS has determined that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, as defined by

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.). The RUS

telecommunications loan program

provides borrowers with loans at

interest rates and terms that are more

favorable than those generally available

from the private sector. RUS borrowers,

as a result of obtaining Federal

financing, receive economic benefits

that exceed any direct cost associated

with complying with RUS regulations

and requirements.

Information Collection and

Recordkeeping Requirements

This proposed rule contains no new

reporting or recordkeeping burdens,

under OMB control number 0572–0079

that would require approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. chapter 35).

Send questions or comments

regarding this burden or any other

aspect of these collections of

information, including suggestions for

reducing the burden to F. Lamont

Heppe, Director, Program Development

and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue,

SW., Room 4034, STOP 1522,

Washington, DC 20250–1522.

National Environmental Policy Act

Certification

The Administrator of RUS has

determined that this proposed rule will

not significantly affect the quality of the

human environment as defined by the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Therefore,

this action does not require an

environmental impact statement or

assessment.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The program described by this

proposed rule is listed in the Catalog of

Federal Domestic Assistance programs

under numbers 10.851, Rural Telephone

Loans and Loan Guarantees, and 10.852,

Rural Telephone Bank Loans. This

catalog is available on a subscription

basis from the Superintendent of

Documents, the United States

Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402–9325.

Telephone: (202) 512–1800.

Executive Order 12372

This program is excluded from the

scope of Executive Order 12372,

Intergovernmental Consultation, which

may require consultation with State and

local officials. See the final rule related

notice entitled ‘‘Department Programs

and Activities Excluded from Executive

Order 12372,’’ (50 FR 47034).

Unfunded Mandates

This proposed rule contains no

Federal mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State,

local, and tribal governments or the

private sector. Thus, this proposed rule

is not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Background

The telecommunications industry is

becoming increasingly competitive. The

Telecommunications Act of 1996

(Public Law 104–104) and regulatory

actions by the Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) are drastically

altering the regulatory and business

environment of all telecommunications

systems, including RUS borrowers. At

the same time, changes in overall

business trends and technologies

continue to place pressure on RUSfinanced systems to offer a wider array

of services and to operate more

efficiently.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996

mandates that universally available and

affordable telecommunications services,

including advanced services, be made

available to all US citizens—whether in

rural areas or city centers, affluent or

poor communities. RUS supports this

mandate and the goal that, with the

assistance of advanced

telecommunications technology, rural

citizens be provided the same economic,

educational, and health care benefits

available in the larger metropolitan

areas. RUS believes that the most

expeditious way to bring the full range

of telephone services to rural areas is to

make certain providers of advanced

services, in addition to providers of

local exchange services, eligible for RUS

financing.

RUS regulations currently contain

criteria for RUS to consider in

determining whether

telecommunications service is

reasonably adequate (7 CFR 1735.12(c),

Nonduplication). However, these

criteria do not recognize certain

technological and other factors that are

currently employed to determine

adequate service. RUS is proposing

separate criteria for local exchange

carriers and providers of specialized

telecommunications service. These

revised criteria for determining

‘‘reasonably adequate service’’ are

derived primarily from RUS policies

related to telecommunications carriers

generally, the Telecommunications Act

of 1996, and FCC rules and regulations.

Under the Telecommunications Act of

1996, all incumbent local exchange

carriers (ILECs) are automatically

considered eligible telecommunications

carriers (ETCs). An ETC is certified by

the regulatory commission having

jurisdiction, which makes it eligible to

receive universal service support. Each

State regulatory commission will name

at least one ETC for every area. In return

for universal service support, the ETC

must make available an FCC-specified

level of service throughout a designated

area. Furthermore, an ETC must agree to

advertise basic services in a specific

area and offer service to everyone in that

area.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33789

If a LEC that has not previously

borrowed from RUS applies for

financing, RUS is proposing to lend

only to those LECs that are ETCs within

the State or tribal jurisdiction in which

their financed facilities are to be

located, LECs that have made

commitments, satisfactory to RUS, to

become ETCs, or LECs that commits to

act as ETCs with respect to the area

coverage requirements as described in

§ 1735.11. ETCs are eligible for

universal service support and have

accepted the obligations of being an

ETC. ETC status, therefore, both

enhances loan feasibility and promotes

area wide coverage. The Governor of RTB utilizes RUS

policies in carrying out RTB’s loan

program. Therefore, these policy

revisions would apply to loans made by

RTB, as well.

RUS proposed amending certain

provisions of 7 CFR part 1735 in a

Proposed Rule published on February

11, 2000 at 65 FR 6922. Subsequently,

RUS continued to review and analyze

the rapidly developing

telecommunications environment and

decided to propose further revisions of

certain provisions of 7 CFR part 1735,

including portions of §§ 1735.2,

1735.10(c), 1735.12, and 1735.14 as

published on February 2, 2000. RUS

requests comments on all provisions

published in this Supplemental

Proposed Rule. Those proposed

amendments published first on

February 11, 2000, but revised again by

this supplement will be subject to the

procedures, including those concerning

public comments, applicable hereto.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1735

Accounting, Loan programs—

communications, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Rural

areas, Telephone.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR chapter XVII is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1735—GENERAL POLICIES,

TYPES OF LOANS, LOAN

REQUIREMENTS—

TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM

1. The authority citation for part 1735

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., 1921 et

seq., and 6941 et seq.

2. In § 1735.2, as proposed to be

amended February 11, 2000, at 65 FR

6923, revise the definition of Mobile

telecommunications service and add the

following definitions in alphabetical

order to read as follows:

§ 1735.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Exchange access means the offering of

access to telephone exchange services or

facilities for the purpose of the

origination or termination of telephone

toll services.

* * * * *

Local exchange carrier (LEC) means

an organization that is engaged in the

provision of telephone exchange service

or exchange access.

* * * * *

Mobile telecommunications service

means radio communication voice

service between mobile and land or

fixed stations, or between mobile

stations.

Modernization Plan (State

Telecommunications Modernization

Plan) means a State plan, which has

been approved by RUS, for improving

the telecommunications network of

those telecommunications providers

covered by the plan. A Modernization

Plan must conform to the provisions of

7 CFR part 1751, subpart B.

* * * * *

RE Act means the Rural Electrification

Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901

et seq.).

* * * * *

Specialized telecommunications

service means any telephone service

other than telephone exchange service,

exchange access, or mobile

telecommunications service.

* * * * *

Telecommunications means the

transmission or reception of voice, data,

sounds, signals, pictures, writings, or

signs of all kinds, by wire, fiber, radio,

light, or other visual or electromagnetic

means. Telephone exchange service means:

(1) Service provided primarily to fixed

locations within a telephone exchange,

or within a connected system of

telephone exchanges within the same

exchange area operated to furnish to

subscribers intercommunicating service

of the character ordinarily furnished by

a single exchange, and which is covered

by the exchange service charge; or (2)

Comparable service provided through a

system of switches, transmission

equipment, or other facilities (or

combination thereof) by which a

subscriber can originate and terminate a

telecommunications service.

* * * * *

3. Revise § 1735.10(c), as proposed to

be revised February 11, 2000, at 65 FR

6923, to read as follows:

§ 1735.10 General.

* * * * *

(c) A borrower receiving a loan to

provide mobile telecommunications

services or special telecommunications

services shall be considered to be

participating in the state

telecommunications plan (TMP) with

respect to the particular loan so long as

the loan funds are not used in a manner

that, in RUS’ opinion, is inconsistent

with the borrower achieving the goals

set forth in the plan, except that a

borrower must comply with any portion

of a TMP made applicable to the

borrower by a state commission with

jurisdiction.

* * * * *

4. In § 1735.12, as proposed to be

amended at 65 FR 6923, revise

paragraph (c) and add paragraph (f) to

read as follows:

§ 1735.12 Nonduplication.

* * * * *

(c) RUS shall consider the following

criteria for any wireline local exchange

service or similar fixed-station voice

service provided by a local exchange

carrier (LEC) in determining whether

such service is reasonably adequate:

(1) The LEC is providing area

coverage as described in § 1735.11.

(2) The LEC is providing all one-party

service or, if the State commission has

mandated a lower grade of service, the

LEC is eliminating that service in

accordance with the requirements of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47

U.S.C. 151 et seq.

(3) The LEC’s network is capable of

providing transmission and reception of

data at a rate of at least 1,000,000 bits

per second (1 Mbps) with reasonable

modification to any subscriber who

requests it.

(4) The LEC makes available custom

calling features (at a minimum, call

waiting, call forwarding, abbreviated

dialing, and three-way calling).

(5) The LEC is able to provide E911

service to all subscribers, when

requested by the government entity

responsible for this service.

(6) The LEC is able to offer local

service with blocked toll access to those

subscribers who request it.

(7) The LEC’s network is capable of

accommodating Internet access at

speeds of at least 28,800 bits per second

(28.8 Kbps) via modem dial-up from any

subscriber location.

(8) There is an absence of frequent

service interruptions.

(9) The LEC is interconnected with

the public switched network.

(10) No Federal or State regulatory

commission having jurisdiction has

determined that the quality, availability,

or reliability of the service provided is

inadequate.

(11) Services are provided at

reasonably affordable rates.

33790 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1Pub. L. 104–231, 110 Stat. 3048.

(12) Any other criteria the

Administrator determines to be

applicable to the particular case.

* * * * *

(f) RUS shall consider the following

criteria for any provider of a specialized

telecommunications service in

determining whether such service is

reasonably adequate:

(1) The provider of a specialized

telecommunications service is providing

area coverage as described in § 1735.11.

(2) An adequate signal strength is

provided throughout the largest

practical portion of the service area.

(3) There is an absence of frequent

service interruptions.

(4) The quality and variety of service

provided is comparable to that provided

in nonrural areas.

(5) The service provided complies

with industry standards.

(6) No Federal, State, or local

regulatory commission having

jurisdiction has determined that the

quality, availability, or reliability of the

service provided is inadequate.

(7) Services are provided at

reasonably affordable rates.

(8) Any other criteria the

Administrator determines to be

applicable to the particular case.

5. In § 1735.14, as proposed to be

amended at 65 FR 6924, remove ‘‘and’’

at the end of paragraph (c)(1), remove

the period at the end of paragraph (c)(2)

and add ‘‘; and’’ in its place, and add

new paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:

§ 1735.14 Borrower eligibility.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) If a local exchange carrier, must be

either an eligible telecommunications

carrier (ETC) within the State or tribal

jurisdiction in which the RUS-financed

facilities are to be located, a LEC that

has made a commitment, satisfactory to

RUS, to become an ETC within the State

or tribal jurisdiction in which the

financed facilities are to be located, or

a LEC that commits to act as an ETC in

such a manner as to meet the area

coverage requirements as described in

§ 1735.11.

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Jill Long Thompson,

Under Secretary, Rural Development.

[FR Doc. 00–12657 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise

Oversight

12 CFR Part 1710

RIN 2550–AA09

Releasing Information; Electronic

Freedom of Information Amendment

AGENCY: Office of Federal Housing

Enterprise Oversight, HUD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Federal Housing

Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) is

proposing to amend its regulations to

reflect the changes to the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) made by the

Electronic Freedom of Information Act

Amendments Act of 1996 (1996 Act)

and to revise the method of computing

fees. The proposal provides for:

electronic FOIA requests; access to

records published or released under

FOIA in electronic format; expedited

processing of FOIA requests upon a

showing of compelling need;

publication of responses to FOIA

requests that are likely to become repeat

requests; aggregation of clearly related

requests by a single requester or group

of requesters acting in concert;

informing the requester of the volume of

requested material withheld and the

extent of deletions both in publicly

available records and records released

in response to a FOIA request; and a

method for computing fees that is based

upon the classification of the employee

performing the work as executive,

professional, or clerical.

DATES: Written comments regarding the

proposed rulemaking must be received

by July 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning

the proposed rule should be addressed

to Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel,

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise

Oversight, 1700 G Street NW, Fourth

Floor, Washington, DC 20552.

Alternatively, comments may be

submitted via electronic mail to:

RegComments@ofheo.gov. Copies of all

communications received will be

available for public inspection and

copying at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dorothy J. Acosta, Associate General

Counsel, 1700 G Street NW, Fourth

Floor, Washington, DC 20552, telephone

(202) 414–6924 (not a toll-free number).

The telephone number for the

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

is (800) 877–8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 23, 1998, OFHEO issued a

final rule governing the release of

information to the public, which, among

other things, implemented the

requirements of the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA). 63 FR 70998,

Dec. 23, 1998. At the time of the

publication of the final regulation,

OFHEO noted that Congress had

enacted the Electronic Freedom of

Information Act Amendments of 1996

(1996 Act) 1 to provide for public access

to information in an electronic format

and for other purposes and announced

that these amendments would be

implemented by a separate rulemaking.

Although certain of the 1996 Act’s

amendments that did not involve access

to records in an electronic format were

included in the final regulation, such as

the extension of the time limit for the

initial agency response from ten (10) to

20 days, this proposed regulation

implements the remainder of the

amendments and proposes a new

method for computing fees. The 1996

Act amendments that are reflected in

this proposal are: (1) The requirement to

make requested documents available in

the form or format specified by the

requester, provided the document is

readily reproducible in that form or

format; (2) the requirement to make

publicly available copies of records

released in response to FOIA requests

that are likely to become the subject of

subsequent requests for substantially the

same records; (3) the requirement for

electronic access to records required to

be made public by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)

that were created after November 1,

1996; (4) the requirement to provide

expedited processing of FOIA requests

upon a showing of compelling need by

the requester and in such other cases as

the agency may determine; (5) the

requirement to indicate the extent of

any deletion made in released records

and publicly available records; (6) the

requirement to inform the requester of

the estimated volume of material

withheld; and (7) the provision for

aggregating clearly related requests as a

single request when such a request

would constitute an ‘‘unusual

circumstance’’ justifying an extension of

the response time. Although the 1996

Act authorized agencies to promulgate

regulations providing for multi-tracking

of FOIA requests based on the amount

of time or work (or both) involved in

processing requests, OFHEO has elected

not to propose such regulations at this

time. Thus far, the volume of FOIA

requests has not been so great that a

multi-tracking system is needed.