Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59749

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Trisha Kurtz, (410) 786–4670.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In our

final rule published June 29, 2000 (65

FR 40170), on page 40232 of the

preamble, we responded to public

comments that addressed our authority

under § 422.156 (Compliance deemed

on the basis of accreditation), paragraph

(e)(1), to remove deemed status on the

basis of a review of accreditation results.

In the preamble, we clarified that we do

not intend to overrule an accreditation

organization’s survey decision without

conducting our own investigation. We

also noted that if our own investigation

reveals that a condition is not met, we

reserve the right to remove the MCO’s

deemed status even when the

accreditation organization has not

removed accreditation with respect to

that condition. In order to clarify the

distinction between: (1) A removal of

deemed status by HCFA, based on

HCFA’s own survey; and (2) a removal

based on a determination of

noncompliance by an accreditation

organization as a result of its

accreditation survey, we stated that we

would revise § 422.156(e)(1). However,

we inadvertently omitted making this

change in the regulations text. This

document corrects that omission by

revising § 422.156(e)(1).

In addition, on pages 40233 through

40234 of the preamble, we responded to

a commenter’s concern regarding

removal of an accreditation

organization’s approval, regardless of

the ‘‘rate of disparity’’ between

certification by the accreditation

organization and certification by HCFA

or our agent, by adding another

reporting requirement in § 422.157

(Accreditation organizations), paragraph

(c)(6). This change requires that

accreditation organizations provide us

annually with summary data relating to

their accreditation activities and

observed trends. These data will assist

us in making a comprehensive

assessment of accreditation

organizations’ performance, and will

help ensure that our oversight decisions

are well-informed and appropriate.

However, this change was inadvertently

omitted in the final regulations text.

This document corrects that omission

by adding § 422.157(c)(6).

Correction of Errors

Regulations Text

§ 422.156 [Corrected]

1. On page 40323, in column 2,

amendatory instruction number 29 is

corrected to read ‘‘Revise paragraphs (a),

(b), and (e)(1) in § 422.156 to read as

follows:’’ and corrected paragraph (e)(1)

is added:

§ 422.156 Compliance deemed on the

basis of accreditation.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) HCFA determines, on the basis of

its own investigation, that the M+C

organization does not meet the Medicare

requirements for which deemed status

was granted.

* * * * *

§ 422.157 [Corrected]

1. On page 40323, in column 3,

amendatory instruction number 30 is

corrected to read ‘‘Section 422.157 is

amended by republishing the

introductory text for paragraph (a),

revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(1), and

adding new paragraph (c)(6) to read as

follows:’’ and new paragraph (c)(6) is

added:

§ 422.157 Accreditation organizations.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(6) Provide, on an annual basis,

summary data specified by HCFA that

relate to the past year’s accreditation

activities and trends.

* * * * *

(Authority: Sections 1851 through 1859 of

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–21

through 1395w–28))

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital

Insurance; and Program No. 93–774,

Medicare—Supplementary Medical

Insurance Program)

Dated: September 28, 2000.

Brian P. Burns,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 00–25499 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 00–91; FCC 00–340]

Availability of Intelsat Space Segment

Capacity

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission has determined that users

and service providers do not have

sufficient opportunity to access

INTELSAT space segment capacity

directly from INTELSAT to meet their

service and capacity requirements. The

Commission also has required Comsat to

enter into commercial negotiations with

direct access customers to attempt to

resolve satellite capacity allocation

issues.

DATES: Effective October 6, 2000 written

comments by the public on the new

information collections are due

December 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

445 Twelfth Street, SW, Washington,

DC, 20554. 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 (May 1, 1998).

Comments filed through the ECFS can

be sent 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 proceeding, however,

commenters must transmit one 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, 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 ecfs@fcc.gov,

and should include the following words

in the body of the message, ‘‘get

form@your e-mail address.’’ A sample

form and directions will be sent in

reply.

A copy of any comments on the

information collection requirements

should be submitted to Judy Boley,

Federal Communications Commission,

Room 1–C804, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC, 20554, or via the

Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Ball, International Bureau, (202)

418–0427; Steven Spaeth, Satellite

Policy Branch, Satellite and

Radiocommunication Division,

International Bureau, (202) 418–1539. A

copy of any comments on the

information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or

via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, adopted September 13, 2000,

and released September 19, 2000. The

full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

59750 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq., has been amended by the Contract With

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law

104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (‘‘CWAAA’’). Title II

of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (‘‘SBREFA’’).

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Information Center,

Room CY–A257, 445 12th St., SW,

Washington, DC 20554. The complete

text of this decision may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, 1231 20th St., NW, Washington,

DC 20036.

The Commission is required to

conduct this rulemaking pursuant to the

recently enacted Open-Market

Reorganization for the Betterment of

International Telecommunications Act

(ORBIT Act). Section 641(b) of the

Communications Satellite Act of 1962,

as amended by the ORBIT Act, requires

the Commission to determine whether

‘‘sufficient opportunity’’ exists for users

and service providers ‘‘to access

INTELSAT space segment capacity

directly from INTELSAT to meet their

service and capacity requirements.’’ If

the Commission finds that ‘‘sufficient

opportunity’’ does not exist, the

Commission is required to ‘‘take

appropriate action to facilitate direct

access,’’ and otherwise ‘‘to take such

steps as may be necessary to prevent

circumvention of the intent’’ of this

section. Section 641(c) states that

‘‘nothing in this section shall be

construed to permit the modification or

abrogation of any contract.’’

In 1999, the Commission permitted

users and service providers in the

United States to obtain Level 3 direct

access to INTELSAT space segment

capacity. Direct Access to the

INTELSAT System, Report and Order,

64 FR 54561 (October 7, 1999). Level 3

direct access permits non-Signatory

users and service providers to enter into

contractual agreements with INTELSAT

for space segment capacity at the same

rates that INTELSAT charges its

Signatories. The subsequently enacted

ORBIT Act mandates that users and

providers of telecommunications

services shall be permitted to obtain

Level 3 direct access to INTELSAT and

requires the Commission to conduct this

rulemaking.

The Commission issued a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in this

proceeding. Availability of INTELSAT

Space Segment Capacity to Users and

Service Providers Seeking to Access

INTELSAT Directly, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 65 FR 35312 (June 2, 2000).

The Commission concludes that users

and service providers currently do not

have sufficient opportunity for direct

access. This is because most of

INTELSAT’s current U.S.-accessible

capacity is subject to Comsat control, or

is committed to other INTELSAT

Signatories. In addition, a significant

portion of INTELSAT’s uncommitted

capacity is fragmented into small

amounts of bandwidth, and therefore

may not be useful for many purposes.

Although INTELSAT plans to launch

new satellites and to redeploy existing

satellites to make more capacity

available by 2003, the Commission

cannot determine whether there will be

sufficient opportunity for direct access

in the future. Most of the new capacity

will be concentrated at three orbital

locations. It is not clear from the record

in this proceeding whether capacity at

those locations will meet the needs of

direct access users. Furthermore,

Comsat can renew the contracts

covering the capacity currently under its

control, so that there is no way to

determine how much of that capacity

will become available for direct access

in the future.

The Commission also concludes that

the ‘‘appropriate action’’ the

Commission should adopt is a

‘‘commercial solution.’’ In other words,

the Commission requires the parties to

attempt to negotiate mutually agreeable

arrangements, and to report back by

March 13, 2001 on the progress of those

negotiations. Finally, the Commission

concludes that the Commission may

adopt a ‘‘regulatory solution’’ if

‘‘commercial solutions’’ are unavailable.

The draft does not foreclose any

regulatory option at this time.

This Report & Order contains new

information collections subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. It will be

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review under

Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the

general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

new or modified information collections

contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This Report and Order contains new

information collections. The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

invites the general public to comment

on the information collections

contained in this R&O as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due December 5, 2000.

Comments should address: (a) Whether

the new or modified 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–XXXX

(new collection).

Title: Availability of INTELSAT Space

Segment Capacity to Users and Service

Providers Seeking to Access INTELSAT

Directly.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities.

Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Time per Response: Two

hours.

Frequency of Response: One time

only.

Total Annual Burden: 20 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $3000.

Needs and Uses: This data collection

is necessary to enable the Commission

to evaluate the decisions made in this

Report and Order.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: As

required by the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA), 1 an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was

incorporated in the Notice. The

Commission then sought written public

comment in that proceeding, including

comments on the IRFA. No party filed

comments in response to the IRFA.

Further, this Report and Order

promulgates no new rules and our

action here does not affect the previous

analysis in the Notice.

Ordering Clauses

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

102(c), 210(c)(2), 201(c)(11), and 641 of

the Communications Satellite Act of

1962, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 721(c),

741(c)(2), 741(c)(11), 765, and Sections

1, 2, 4(c), 201, 202, 214, 301, 303, 307,

308, and 309 of the Communications

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

152, 154(c), 201, 202, 214, 301, 303, 307,

308, and 309, that the requirements and

policies are adopted.

Comsat Corporation shall file the

report discussed in this Order on or

before March 13, 2001.

Authority is delegated to the Chief,

International Bureau, as specified

herein, to effect the decisions set forth

above.

The Motion for Extension of Time

filed by Comsat Corporation on July 24,

2000, is granted.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59751

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–25740 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 87–267; FCC 00–291]

Implementation of the AM Expanded

Band Allotment Plan

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; on remand from U.S.

Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit; record

supplemented.

SUMMARY: After undertaking a

hypothetical computer re-analysis of the

allotment plan for the migration of AM

radio stations to the expanded band, i.e.,

1605–1705 kHz, deleting protections for

federal Traveler Information Service

(‘‘TIS’’), the Federal Communications

Commission (‘‘FCC’’) concluded that

WGNY(AM), Newburgh, New York,

would not have been granted an AM

expanded band allotment even if TIS

station protection was deleted. This

action was taken in response to WGNY’s

argument that it would have been

granted an expanded band allotment if

the expanded band plan did not include

TIS protections. The FCC also declined

to consider WGNY’s objections to

several fundamental aspects of the

allotment methodology which were

resolved earlier in this proceeding but

about which WGNY did not object

previously.

DATES: Effective August 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter H. Doyle, Audio Services Division,

Mass Media Bureau (202) 418–2789.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

Implementation of the AM Expanded

Band Allotment Plan, MM Bureau

Docket No. 87–267, FCC 00–291,

adopted August 3, 2000, released

August 10, 2000 (‘‘Memorandum

Opinion and Order’’), on remand from

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit (the ‘‘Court’’), the

Federal Communications Commission

concluded that a computer reanalysis

performed by the FCC staff establishes

that Station WGNY(AM), Newburgh,

New York, would not receive an AM

expanded band allotment even if the

FCC were to adopt the technical change

to the allotment methodology that the

licensee of WGNY(AM) advocated. On

June 25, 1997, Sunrise Broadcasting of

New York, Inc., sought review by the

Court of the FCC’s March 17, 1997

Order in Implementation of the AM

Expanded Band Allotment Plan, FCC

97–68, 12 FCC Rcd 3361, 62 FR 23176

(Apr. 29, 1997) (‘‘Order’’), which had

denied, inter alia, Sunrise’s Petition for

Reconsideration of Non-Inclusion in

Expanded AM Band Allotment Plan.

Note: 62 FR 23176 inadvertently

omitted the Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis for the Order, FCC 97–68; that

analysis is located at 62 FR 28369 (May

23, 1997). Also on March 17, 1997, the

Mass Media Bureau issued a Public

Notice, Mass Media Bureau Announces

Revised AM Expanded Band Allotment

Plan and Filing Window for Eligible

Stations, 12 FCC Rcd 3185 (MM Bureau

1997) (‘‘Third Allotment Plan’’) which

did not include an expanded band

allotment for WGNY. Sunrise argued to

the Court of Appeals that the staff’s

granting certain Traveler Information

Service (‘‘TIS’’) stations co-primary

status (thus according them some

interference protection) was an

unexplained change of agency policy

and resulted in WGNY being precluded

from obtaining an expanded band

allotment. The Mass Media Bureau

responded to the Court with a computer

analysis that eliminated TIS Station

consideration but still resulted in

WGNY not having an allotment. After

the Court remanded the matter to the

FCC on this point, on March 31, 1998,

the Mass Media Bureau supplemented

the record with the computer reanalysis. On October 19, 1998, Sunrise

conceded this point, but in Comments

filed with the FCC it sought

consideration, for the first time, of

issues not previously raised in this

proceeding. Specifically, Sunrise

objected to the 1995 FCC decision to

change the co-channel distance

separation requirements for AM

expanded band stations from 400 to 800

kilometers (see Reconsideration of

Implementation of the AM Expanded

Band Allotment Plan, 10 FCC Rcd

12143, 12149 (1995)), and to the

calculation of the improvement factors

for two of the 710 potential expanded

band stations listed in a 1996 Mass

Media Bureau Public Notice (see Public

Notice, Mass Media Bureau Announces

Revised Experimental AM Broadcast

Band Implementation Factors and

Allotment Plan, 11 FCC Rcd 11419

(MMB 1996). In the Memorandum

Opinion and Order, the FCC denied as

untimely Sunrise’s request to reexamine

any aspects of the AM expanded band

proceeding other than those relating

directly to the interference protection

afforded TIS stations, and ordered that

the Mass Media Bureau’s computer reanalysis be made a part of the record in

this proceeding. The full text of the

Memorandum Opinion and Order

issued in Implementation of the AM

Expanded Band Allotment Plan, FCC

00–291, adopted August 3, 2000 and

released on August 10, 2000 is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Dockets Branch (Room TW–A306), 445

12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. The

complete text of this MO&O may also be

purchased from the FCC’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–25734 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2148; MM Docket No. 99–75; RM–

9446]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Grants,

Milan, NM

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of Don Davis, former licensee of

Station KQEO(FM), now Station

KXXQ(FM), Grants, New Mexico,

reallots Channel 264A from Grants to

Milan, New Mexico as the community’s

second local aural transmisson service.

See 64 FR 14423 (March 25, 1999).

Channel 264A at Grants was

downgraded from 264C2 by one-step

application (File No. BMPH–

19960226IB) granted on June 13, 1996.

Channel 264A can be allotted to Milan

in compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance separation

requirements, with respect to domestic

allotments, at petitioner’s site 5.7

kilometers (3.6 miles) south, at

coordinates 35–07–09 North Latitude

and 107–54–08 West Longitude.

DATES: Effective November 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.