Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 15901 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 0023.1 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves establishing a safety zone 

around a fireworks display. The 

fireworks will be launched from a land 

area, however some fallout may enter 

the water within a 210 foot radius of the 

launching site. This zone is designed to 

protect mariners from the hazards 

associated with fireworks displays. 

An environmental analysis checklist 

and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T05–0189 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0189 Safety Zone; Norfolk Tides 

Post-Game Fireworks Display, Elizabeth 

River, Norfolk, VA. 

(a) Regulated Area. The following area 

is a safety zone: Specified waters of the 

Elizabeth River located within a 210 

foot radius of the fireworks launching 

site located at approximate position 

36°50′30′′ N/76°16′42′′ W (NAD 1983), 

directly behind Harbor Park Stadium in 

the vicinity of Norfolk, VA. 

(b) Definition: For the purposes of this 

part, Captain of the Port Representative: 

means any U.S. Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

who has been authorized by the Captain 

of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia to 

act on his behalf. 

(c) Regulations: (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in 165.23 of this 

part, entry into this zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, Hampton Roads or his designated 

representatives. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

immediate vicinity of this safety zone 

shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on shore or on board a vessel that is 

displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on shore or on board a vessel that is 

displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign. 

(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton 

Roads can be reached through the Sector 

Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads 

in Portsmouth, Virginia at telephone 

Number (757) 668–5555. 

(4) The Coast Guard Representatives 

enforcing the safety zone can be 

contacted on VHF–FM marine band 

radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and 

channel 16 (156.8 Mhz). 

(d) Enforcement Period: This 

regulation will be in enforced on May 

16, 2009 from 10 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. 

Dated: March 25, 2009. 

Patrick B. Trapp, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. E9–7884 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

37 CFR Part 370 

[Docket No. RM 2008–7] 

Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of 

Sound Recordings Under Statutory 

License 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, 

Library of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges 

are seeking written comments from 

interested parties to questions relating 

to the costs of census versus sample 

reporting to assist the Judges in the 

revision of the interim regulations for 

filing notices of use and the delivery of 

records of use of sound recordings 

under two statutory licenses of the 

Copyright Act. 

DATES: Comments are due no later than 

May 26, 2009. Reply comments are due 

no later than June 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply 

comments may be sent electronically to 

crb@loc.gov. In the alternative, send an 

original, five copies, and an electronic 

copy on a CD either by mail or hand 

delivery. Please do not use multiple 

means of transmission. Comments and 

reply comments may not be delivered 

by an overnight delivery service other 

than the U.S. Postal Service Express 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
15902 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Mail. If by mail (including overnight 

delivery), comments and reply 

comments must be addressed to: 

Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 

70977, Washington, DC 20024–0977. If 

hand delivered by a private party, 

comments and reply comments must be 

brought to the Copyright Office Public 

Information Office, Library of Congress, 

James Madison Memorial Building, 

Room LM–401, 101 Independence 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559– 

6000. If delivered by commercial 

courier, comments and reply comments 

must be delivered between 8:30 a.m. 

and 4 p.m. to the Congressional Courier 

Acceptance Site located at 2nd and D 

Street, NE., Washington, DC, and the 

envelope must be addressed to: 

Copyright Royalty Board, Library of 

Congress, James Madison Memorial 

Building, LM–403, 101 Independence 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559– 

6000. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Strasser, Senior Attorney, or 

Gina Giuffreda, Attorney Advisor, by 

telephone at (202) 707–7658 or e-mail at 

crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 30, 2008, the Copyright 

Royalty Judges (‘‘Judges’’) published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NPRM’’) setting forth proposed 

revisions to the interim regulations 

adopted in October 2006 for filing 

notice of use and the delivery of sound 

recordings under sections 114 and 112 

of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the 

United States Code. 73 FR 79727. 

Specifically, the Judges proposed 

eliminating obsolete provisions of the 

interim regulations and placing 

definitions that were duplicated in 

various sections of the interim 

regulations into a new single definition 

section applicable throughout Part 370 

unless otherwise defined in a specific 

section. Id. The more significant 

revision proposed by the Judges was to 

expand the reporting period to 

implement year-round census reporting. 

Consequently, the Judges proposed 

eliminating for nonsubscription services 

the aggregate tuning hours (‘‘ATH’’) 

approach previously available and 

requiring that such services now report 

actual total performances. Conversely, 

the Judges proposed allowing 

preexisting satellite digital audio radio 

services, new subscription services and 

business establishment services to 

achieve census reporting by using the 

ATH option if technological 

impediments existed which thwarted 

the measurement of actual listenership. 

Finally, the Judges also solicited 

comments on technological 

developments which may warrant 

additional revisions to rules governing 

the method of reporting specific data 

elements and/or the delivery 

mechanism employed for reporting. 

Discussion of Comments Received 

In response to the NPRM, the Judges 

received 43 comments from various 

categories of interested parties: (1) 

Representatives of copyright owners and 

performers, including SoundExchange, 

the Collective charged with collecting 

and distributing royalties; (2) copyright 

users and/or their representatives, 

educational radio broadcasters, a 

noncommercial religious broadcaster, 

and an operator of radio and Internet 

stations featuring Christian 

programming; (3) an Internet service 

that simulcasts the over-the-air and 

Internet-only broadcasts of primarily 

noncommercial terrestrial radio stations; 

and (4) software providers of 

recordkeeping solutions to radio 

stations and webcasters. 

SoundExchange and Frederick 

Wilhelms III, who works for recording 

artists and songwriters, support the 

Judges’ proposal to require census 

reporting. They contend that the current 

sample reporting results in 

underpayments or non-payments to 

some copyright owners and performers. 

Comments of SoundExchange at 4; 

Comments of Wilhelms at 1. According 

to SoundExchange, requiring all 

services to provide census reporting 

would eliminate this shortcoming and 

allow SoundExchange to ‘‘distribute 

funds on a fully accurate basis to all 

copyright owners and performers.’’ 

Comments of SoundExchange at 3 

(footnote omitted). SoundExchange 

notes that ‘‘many services already 

provide SoundExchange with yearround census reporting,’’ Id. at 5, and 

estimates that ‘‘over 75% of the royalties 

it receives from licensees are associated 

with reports of use that are made using 

year-round census reporting.’’ Id. at 6. 

Commenters representing certain 

educational and commercial radio 

broadcasters opposed the proposed 

census reporting requirement. The 

educational radio broadcasters who 

filed comments stated that they 

currently do not pay more than the $500 

minimum fee and do not exceed the 

minimum ATH threshold. See, e.g., 

Comments of WONB Radio, Comments 

of WESS Radio. See also Comments of 

College Broadcasters Inc. These 

commenters argued that compliance 

with such requirements would be 

unduly burdensome, if not impossible, 

for them because they lack the finances, 

the staff, and the technology to do so. 

Consequently, they conclude that 

application of the proposed revisions 

would force many of them to cease their 

operations due to their inability to 

comply with the revised regulations. 

See Comments of WPTS, KWSC–FM, 

and Blaze Radio. Moreover, some 

commenters note that complying with 

the proposed provision regarding census 

reporting would be difficult because 

many educational radio broadcasters do 

not have automated playlists but rather 

their playlists are created manually by 

disc jockeys as they play the music. See, 

e.g., Comments of WSOU–FM at 1–2. 

Consequently, they urge the Judges to 

exempt from more stringent reporting 

requirements those educational radio 

broadcasters currently paying only the 

$500 minimum fee and not exceeding 

the ATH threshold and allow them to 

continue to report under the current 

interim regulations. 

The National Association of 

Broadcasters’ (‘‘NAB’’) comment echoes 

the educational radio broadcasters’ 

contention that the proposed move to 

census reporting and the elimination of 

the ATH option would place an undue 

burden on broadcasters that is not 

required by the statute. Comments of 

NAB at 4. NAB argues that there has 

been no showing that ‘‘the sampling 

methodology currently utilized by 

SoundExchange is inefficient, or results 

in significant misallocation of royalty 

payments.’’ Id. at 3. 

With respect to the elimination of the 

ATH option, NAB contends that this 

option is ‘‘critical’’ for some 

broadcasters. Id. NAB asserts that 

payment of royalties on the basis of 

actual performances is far different from 

reporting performances of any given 

recording on an actual performance 

basis. NAB states that the latter requires 

the matching of the identity of the song 

with the number of listeners while the 

former does not. According to NAB, to 

accomplish the reporting proposed by 

the Judges, broadcasters would have to 

merge internal song identification and 

automation software. NAB argues that 

often these systems are incapable of 

communicating with each other and are 

not operated by the same entities. Id. 

Two recordkeeping and reporting 

vendors also opposed the proposed 

census reporting requirement, citing 

concerns about costs and the 

technological difficulties in calculating 

actual total performances accurately. 

Comments of RadioActivity.Fm and 

Tom Worster/Spinitron. 

Request for Additional Information 

The current proposal is intended to 

fulfill the Judges’ obligations under the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 15903 

1Please consider an entity as small if it is 

independently owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field of operation. 

Copyright Act to establish requirements 

by which copyright owners may receive 

reasonable notice of the use of their 

sound recordings and under which 

records of use shall be kept and made 

available by entities performing sound 

recordings. See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 

114(f)(4)(A). The Judges have 

determined preliminarily that such 

reasonable notice of use requires the 

type of census reporting that this 

proposal mandates. However, the Judges 

are mindful of the concerns expressed 

by some commenters that any reporting 

requirements that the Judges adopt 

should not unduly burden the services 

required to file reports of use. Therefore, 

the Judges seek additional information 

to gain a fuller understanding of the 

likely costs and benefits that will be 

derived if the proposed census reporting 

provision is adopted and to consider 

any alternatives to the proposal that 

might accomplish the same goals as the 

proposal in a less burdensome way, 

particularly with respect to small 

entities. 

Consideration of Impact on Small 

Entities 

Some commenters have stated that the 

proposed census reporting requirement 

would adversely impact small entities. 

The Judges are mindful of any impact 

that the current proposal may have on 

small entities. Therefore, the Judges 

seek comment on the approximate 

number of small entities that would be 

impacted by the proposed rulemaking, 

and in particular, by the proposed 

census reporting requirement. 

To help mitigate possible impact on 

small entities, the Judges also seek 

possible alternatives to the proposed 

census provision. In considering the 

proposed census reporting requirement, 

the Judges considered, as possible 

alternatives, maintaining the current 

reporting requirement, which requires 

services to provide the total number of 

performances of each sound recording 

during the relevant reporting period, 

which is currently limited to two 

periods of seven consecutive days for 

each calendar quarter of the year. 

Moreover, with respect to certain 

services, the proposal includes an ATH 

alternative to measuring performances 

to the extent that technological 

impediments hamper such a service’s 

ability to measure actual listenership. 

The Judges also considered exempting 

from the proposed census reporting 

requirements certain categories of 

services that might lack the resources or 

the technological sophistication to 

comply with the proposed census 

reporting requirement. Preliminarily, 

the Judges believe that the alternatives 

discussed above could result in an 

unfair allocation of royalty fees by 

under-compensating certain copyright 

owners who were not accurately 

represented through the current sample 

reporting and by over-compensating 

copyright owners whose works are overrepresented in the sample period. 

Nevertheless, the Judges seek comment 

on the alternatives discussed above, as 

well as others that the Judges should 

consider and whether those alternatives 

would be preferable to the current 

proposal in terms of accurately 

representing the actual listenership 

information and any cost savings that 

might be realized should the Judges 

adopt an alternative rather than the 

current proposed census reporting 

provision. 

In this regard, the Judges seek detailed 

information from SoundExchange about 

the way in which the proposed census 

reporting requirement would enhance 

its ability to more accurately and 

efficiently distribute royalties to 

copyright owners. In particular, the 

Judges seek information from 

SoundExchange that discusses the 

current methodology SoundExchange 

uses to allocate royalties as well as a 

discussion about how that methodology 

would change if the proposed census 

provision is adopted. Currently, 

SoundExchange is receiving some 

reports based on ATH rather than on the 

measurement of the actual total 

performances of a sound recording 

during the reporting period. How is 

SoundExchange currently allocating 

payments among the specific songs 

performed in ATH-based reports? What 

proportion of the total number of songs 

performed in the first quarter of 2008 

was reported on an ‘‘actual total 

performance basis’’ as compared to an 

ATH basis? What proportion of 

revenues received for songs performed 

in the first quarter of 2008 have been 

distributed to date? For the same period, 

what proportion of the revenues 

distributed were revenues attributed to 

song performance as measured by actual 

total performance as compared to by 

ATH? What metrics does 

SoundExchange currently employ to 

measure its effectiveness in receiving 

and distributing performance revenues? 

We seek estimates from 

SoundExchange (and others) detailing 

the cost savings or additional burdens, 

if any, that copyright owners might 

expect if the census reporting provision 

were adopted. As discussed above, 

SoundExchange has stated that ‘‘over 

75% of the royalties it receives from 

licensees are associated with reports of 

use that are made using year-round 

census reporting.’’ Comments of 

SoundExchange at 6. The Judges seek 

additional information on how 

SoundExchange derived this estimate. 

For example, what percentage of 

reporting entities currently uses yearround census reporting? What 

percentage of songs for which 

SoundExchange is the Collective are 

reported based on year-round census 

reporting? What is the nature of those 

entities that do not currently use yearround census reporting? For example, 

what percentage of entities that do not 

use year-round reporting are small 

entities? 1 What percentage are not-forprofit entities? 

If the Judges were to exempt certain 

classes of entities from the proposed 

year-round reporting provision, what 

would be appropriate criteria for such 

an exemption? In providing your 

comment, please consider which 

entities would be least likely to have the 

resources or technological 

sophistication to comply with the 

proposed census provision. For 

example, would a revenue-based cut-off 

be the most appropriate method for 

developing an exemption? If so, what 

would be an appropriate revenue level 

to qualify for an exemption? In the 

alternative, would it be more 

appropriate to exempt from the 

proposed census reporting provision 

those entities that qualify for the 

minimum $500 per channel or per 

station performance royalty set forth in 

37 CFR 380.3(a)(2)? If so, should the 

exemption be limited to noncommercial 

entities or should commercial entities 

qualify for the exemption also? Are 

there other criteria that would be 

preferable in formulating an exemption 

(e.g., number of employees, profit versus 

not-for-profit organizational structure)? 

Has SoundExchange considered 

adding any additional open-source 

licensed spreadsheet programs to the 

Microsoft Excel and Corel Quattro Pro 

spreadsheet programs it currently 

supports to facilitate the submission of 

Reports of Use? What are the potential 

benefits and difficulties associated with 

adding such programs? (Any costs cited 

should be specific dollar amounts). 

Which Services have examined the use 

of such open source software? How 

many would adopt it if it were available 

as an option? What is the specific dollar 

amount of any cost-savings envisioned 

by Services specifically attributable to 

the use of such open-source spreadsheet 

software? 

As discussed above, some 

commenters state that complying with 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
15904 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the proposed provision regarding census 

reporting would be difficult because 

many educational radio broadcasters do 

not have automated playlists but rather 

their playlists are created manually by 

disc jockeys as they play the music. See, 

e.g., Comments of WSOU–FM at 1–2. 

The Judges seek comment on the 

percentage of broadcasters that do not 

use automated playlists. Assuming 

playlists are completely automated, is 

the cost of preparing a Report of Use 

likely to rise for a Service which moves 

from the current 2-weeks per quarter 

sampling period to full census? If so, by 

how much will such costs rise? What 

specifically accounts for any such 

increase? 

For those entities that do not use 

automated playlists, what means do 

they use for complying with current 

reporting requirements? Is all 

programming on college and other 

educational stations done manually? Do 

such stations currently have automated 

playlist capabilities in place? In other 

words, does manual programming occur 

simply as a matter of creative choice? 

Where a college radio station does not 

currently have an automated playlist 

capability, what is the cost of obtaining 

such a capability? What technologies, if 

any, are currently employed in 

complying with the current 

requirements? Which companies offer 

them and at what cost? What changes, 

if any, would be required to comply 

with the proposed census reporting 

requirement? What are the likely costs 

that would be required to move from the 

current reporting methodology to one 

that would be required under the 

proposal? Is technology currently 

available that would permit entities that 

do not use automated playlists to 

comply with the proposed census 

provision? If so, what companies 

provide such capabilities and at what 

cost? If such technology is not currently 

available, what would be the costs of 

developing it? 

Dated: April 3, 2009. 

James Scott Sledge, 

Chief, U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. E9–7950 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Part 26 

[Docket No. OST–2009] 

RIN 2105–AD75 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 

Program; Potential Program 

Improvements 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

DOT. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: This advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 

provides interested parties with the 

opportunity to comment on five matters 

of interest to participants in the 

Department of Transportation’s 

disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) 

program. The first concerns counting of 

items obtained by a DBE subcontractor 

from its prime contractor. The second 

concerns ways of encouraging 

‘‘unbundling’’ of contracts to facilitate 

participation by small businesses, 

including DBEs. The third is a request 

for comments on potential 

improvements to the DBE application 

form, and the fourth asks for suggestions 

related to program oversight. The fifth 

concerns potential regulatory action to 

facilitate certification for firms seeking 

to work as DBEs in more than one state. 

The sixth concerns additional 

limitations on the discretion of prime 

contractors to terminate DBEs for 

convenience, once the prime contractor 

had committed to using the DBE as part 

of its showing of good faith efforts. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by July 7, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

(identified by the agency name and DOT 

Docket ID Number OST–2009) by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name (Office of the Secretary, 

DOT) and Docket number (OST–2009) 

for this notice at the beginning of your 

comments. You should submit two 

copies of your comments if you submit 

them by mail or courier. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov including any 

personal information provided and will 

be available to internet users. You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477) or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For internet access to the 

docket to read background documents 

and comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Background 

documents and comments received may 

also be viewed at the U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Ave., SE., Docket Operations, M–30, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant 

General Counsel for Regulation and 

Enforcement, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001, Room W94–302, 202–366–9310, 

bob.ashby@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department is holding a series of 

stakeholder meetings to bring together 

prime contractors, DBEs, and state and 

local government representatives to 

discuss ways of improving 

administration of the DBE program. As 

a result of these discussions, the 

Department has issued, and will 

continue to consider, guidance 

Questions and Answers to help 

participants better understand and carry 

out their responsibilities. Addressing 

other issues raised in the discussions, 

however, may require changes to the 

DBE rules themselves (49 CFR Parts 23 

and 26). This ANPRM concerns five 

such issues: (1) Counting of DBE credit 

for items obtained by DBE 

subcontractors from other sources, 

particularly the prime contractor for 

whom they are working on a given 

contract; (2) ways of encouraging 

recipients to break up contracts into 

smaller pieces that can more easily be 

performed by small businesses like 

DBEs, known as ‘‘unbundling;’’ (3) 

potential ways of improving the DBE 

application and personal net worth 

(PNW) forms; (4) potential ways of 

improving program oversight, and (5) 

potential ways of reducing burdens on 

firms seeking certification as DBEs in 

more than one state. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1