23204 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(a) To demonstrate the ability to meet

the financial requirements, a private

insurance company wishing to enter or

reenter the WYO program must:

(1) Be a licensed property insurance

company;

(2) Have a five (5) year history of

writing property insurance;

(3) Disclose any legal proceedings,

suspensions, judgments, settlements, or

agreements reached with any State

insurance department, State attorney

general, State corporation commission,

or the Federal Government during the

immediately prior five (5) years

regarding the company’s business

practices;

(4) Submit its most recent National

Association of Insurance Commissioners

(NAIC) annual statement;

(5) Submit, as data become available,

information to indicate that the

company meets or exceeds NAIC

standards for risk-based capital and

surplus; and

(6) Submit its last State or regional

audit, which should contain no material

negative findings.

(b) To demonstrate the ability to meet

the financial requirements, an

association of local governments, or a

State municipal league-sponsored

intergovernmental risk-sharing pool for

covering public entity structures,

wishing to enter the WYO pilot program

commencing on October 1, 2001, must:

(1) Have authority by a State to

provide property coverage to its

members;

(2) Have a five (5) year history of

writing property coverage;

(3) Disclose any legal proceedings,

suspensions, judgments, settlements, or

agreements reached with any State

insurance department, State attorney

general, State corporation commission,

or the Federal Government during the

immediate prior five (5) years regarding

the company’s business practices; and

(4) Submit its most recent two annual

audits from an independent accounting

firm performed in compliance with

generally accepted accounting

principles that show no material

negative findings; and submit, as data

become available, information to

indicate that the association or the pool

meets or exceeds standards comparable

to those of the NAIC for risk-based

capital and surplus.

(c) An applicant for entry or reentry

in the WYO program must also pass a

test to determine the applicant’s ability

to process flood insurance and meet the

Transaction Record Reporting and

Processing (TRRP) Plan requirements of

the WYO Financial Control Plan. Unless

the test requirement is waived, e.g.,

where the applicant’s reporting

requirements will be fulfilled by an

already qualified performer, the

applicant must prepare and submit test

output monthly tape(s) and monthly

financial statements and reconciliations

for processing by the NFIP Bureau and

Statistical Agent contractor. For test

purposes, no error tolerance will be

allowed. If the applicant fails the initial

test, a second test will be run, which the

applicant must pass to participate in the

Program.

(d) To satisfy the requirement for

commitment to Program goals,

including marketing of flood insurance

policies, the applicant shall submit

information concerning the company’s

plans for the WYO Program including

plans for the training and support of

producers and staff, marketing plans

and sales targets, and claims handling

and disaster response plans. Applicants

must also identify those aspects of their

planned flood insurance operations to

be performed by another organization,

managing agent, another WYO

Company, a WYO vendor, a service

bureau or related organization.

Applicants shall also name, in addition

to a Principal Coordinator, a corporate

officer point of contact—an individual,

e.g., at the level of Senior Executive

Vice President, who reports directly to

the Chief Executive Officer or the Chief

Operating Officer. Each applicant shall

furnish the latest available information

regarding the number of its fire, allied

lines, farmowners multiple peril,

homeowners multiple peril, and

commercial multiple peril policies in

force, by line. A private insurance

company applying for participation in

the WYO program shall also furnish its

Best’s Financial Size Category for the

purpose of setting marketing goals.

Appendix A to Part 62 [Amended]

3. Add the following ADDENDUM at

the end of Appendix A to Part 62:

* * * * *

Addendum to Appendix A to Part 62—

Federal Emergency Management

Agency, Federal Insurance

Administration, Financial Assistance/

Subsidy Arrangement

Note: This Addendum to Appendix A to

Part 62 applies only to public entity insurers

participating in the pilot project established

in § 62.24(b) that permits State municipal

league-sponsored intergovernmental risksharing pools to provide flood insurance to

public entities to cover public buildings.

‘‘Company’’ in the preceding Arrangement

includes ‘‘public entity insurer.’’

The references to ‘‘marketing guidelines’’

in Article II—Undertaking of the Company

and to ‘‘marketing goals’’ in Article III—Loss

Costs, Expenses, Expense Reimbursement,

and Premium Refunds shall apply only to the

private insurance companies participating in

the WYO program.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Dated: May 1, 2001.

Howard Leikin,

Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–11364 Filed 5–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–03–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 96–45, FCC 01–143]

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission proposes a revised method

for allocating discounts to schools and

libraries under the federal universal

service mechanism when there is

insufficient funding to support all

requests for internal connections. The

Commission also seeks comment on

proposed administrative modifications

to our rules to provide additional time

for recipients under the schools and

libraries universal service support

mechanism to implement contracts or

agreements with service providers for

non-recurring services.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

May 23, 2001. Reply comments are due

on or before May 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to

the Commission’s Secretary, Magalie

Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20554. Parties should also send three

paper copies of their filings to Sheryl

Todd, Accounting Policy Division,

Common Carrier Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission, 445

Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 5–B540,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties who

choose to file by paper should also

submit their comments on diskette.

These diskettes should be submitted to

Sheryl Todd, Accounting Policy

Division, Common Carrier Bureau,

Federal Communications Commission,

445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 5–B540,

Washington, D.C. 20554. The diskette

should be clearly labeled with the

commenter’s name, proceeding,

including the lead docket number in the

proceeding (CC Docket No. 96–45), type

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23205

of pleading (comment or reply

comment), date of submission, and the

name of the electronic file on diskette.

In addition, commenters must send

diskette copies to the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katherine Tofigh, Attorney, Common

Carrier Bureau, Accounting Policy

Division, (202) 418–7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96–45

released on April 30, 2001. The full text

of this document is available for public

inspection during regular business

hours in the FCC Reference Center,

Room CY–A257, 445 Twelfth Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554.

I. Introduction

1. The Commission’s rules require

schools and libraries to implement

services for which discounts have been

committed by the Administrator within

the funding year for which the

discounts were sought. The

Commission’s May 8, 1997, Universal

Service Order, 62 FR 32862 (June 17,

1997), established a calendar funding

year (January 1—December 31) for

schools and libraries receiving universal

service support. On September 10, 1997,

the Common Carrier Bureau released a

Public Notice, 62 FR 48280, September

15, 1997, seeking comment on Universal

Service Support Distribution Options

for School, Libraries, and Rural Health

Care Providers. The Commission

subsequently issued its Fifth

Reconsideration Order, 63 FR 38089,

July 15, 1998, which changed the

funding year for schools and libraries

support to a fiscal year (July 1–June 30).

2. In the Tenth Reconsideration

Order, 64 FR 22806, April 28, 1999, the

Commission extended the deadline for

schools and libraries to use their

discounts on non-recurring services

from June 30, 1999 to September 30,

1999, which allowed schools and

libraries to implement non-recurring

services in the summer months, when

schools were in recess. On May 4, 2000,

the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau)

extended the Year 2 deadline for

schools and libraries to use their

discounts on non-recurring services

from June 30, 2000 (the end of the

funding period) to September 30, 2000.

3. In this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (FNPRM), we propose a

revised method for allocating discounts

to schools and libraries under the

federal universal service mechanism

when there is insufficient funding to

support all requests for internal

connections. Specifically, we seek

comment on a proposed rule change to

give funding priority to requests for

internal connections made by

individual schools and libraries that did

not receive funding commitments for

internal connections during the

previous funding year. With many

schools and libraries having already

benefited from several years of

discounts for internal connections

under the existing mechanism, we

conclude that it is appropriate to

reconsider the rules of priority to ensure

that discounts continue to go to those

most in need.

4. We also seek comment on proposed

administrative modifications to our

rules to provide additional time for

recipients under the schools and

libraries universal service support

mechanism to implement contracts or

agreements with service providers for

non-recurring services. First, we

propose to extend the deadline for

receipt of non-recurring services from

June 30, to September 30 following the

close of the funding year. Second, we

propose to establish a deadline for the

implementation of non-recurring

services for certain qualified applicants

who are unable to complete

implementation by the September 30

deadline. These minor administrative

modifications should provide applicants

with greater flexibility without

compromising program integrity.

Finally, on our own motion, we waive

the June 30, 2001 deadline for

implementation of non-recurring

services for all Funding Year 3

applicants and extend the deadline to

September 30, 2001.

II. Discussion

A. Funding Priority for Internal

Connections

5. The Commission did not envision

demand for the schools and libraries

universal service support mechanism at

the level we are currently experiencing.

In the Fifth Order on Reconsideration,

and the Eleventh Order on

Reconsideration, 64 FR 33785, June 24,

1999, the Commission anticipated that

the fund would provide full support for

telecommunications services and

Internet access, and would provide

support for internal connections for the

neediest applicants. In Funding Year 4,

however, the Administrator estimates

that there will not be enough funding

for the neediest applicants, who are

eligible for a 90 percent discount. The

Commission is committed to ensuring

that discounts under this support

mechanism are targeted to the schools

and libraries with the greatest need.

Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to

reconsider the Commission’s rules of

priority to ensure that support goes to

the neediest applicants. The

Commission seeks comments on two

options, relating to the distribution of

support for internal connections. The

first option would be to maintain the

Commission’s rules as currently written,

which direct that the remaining funds

be prorated by discount band. The

second option would be to give funding

priority to requests for internal

connections made by individual schools

and libraries that did not receive

funding commitments for internal

connections during the previous

funding year.

6. Our current rules require that the

Administrator allocate the available

funds among applicants in the 90

percent discount level on a pro rata

basis, so that each applicant would

receive only a portion of the amount

requested. The Commission has several

concerns about the application of the

current rules of priority. If applicants

were to receive only a pro rata portion

of the support they requested, schools

and libraries might not receive sufficient

funding to permit completion of a useful

system of internal connections. As a

result, schools and libraries would be in

a position of hiring contractors to

perform only a portion of an internal

connection project. It is possible that

some schools may be unable to

complete even part of their internal

connection project, because they are

unable to finance the additional funding

burden. The Commission is also

concerned that applicants eligible for 90

percent discounts could receive funding

commitments on internal connections

for two years in a row, while other

schools that are also economically

disadvantaged, albeit not to the same

degree, could receive no discounts at

all. Therefore, some needy schools will

get no support, while others receive

support for several consecutive years. In

light of these concerns, we seek

comment on whether we should keep

the funding priority rules without

modification.

7. The Commission proposes and

seeks comment on a second option. For

each funding year, starting with

Funding Year 4, funding priority would

be given to requests for internal

connections made by individual schools

and libraries that did not receive

funding commitments for internal

connections during the previous

funding year in order of discount level.

Specifically, for both shared services

and site-specific services, the

23206 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Administrator would examine each

application to determine which

individual sites within that application

had not received funding for internal

connections in the prior funding year.

These individual sites would be funded

in order of discount level. We seek

comment on this proposal.

8. By adopting the proposed rule

change, we would be able to fund

requests for internal connections from

many needy schools and libraries that

did not receive funding in the previous

funding year. As a result, we would be

able to better target discounts to schools

and libraries that are more in need of

discounts. We tentatively conclude that

this approach would be more consistent

with the Commission’s commitment to

ensuring that discounts under this

support mechanism are targeted to the

schools and libraries with the greatest

need. While we recognize that some

applicants’ requests would not be

funded during the current funding year,

those applicants could apply for

discounts for internal connections

during the following funding year. We

also note that the rule change could be

implemented with relative ease, because

little or no additional information

would be necessary from the applicants.

Currently, the necessary information

relating to individual schools and

libraries is collected as part of Item 22

of the applicant’s FCC Form 471.

B. Modification of Implementation

Schedule for Non-Recurring Services

9. We also propose to revise the

Commission’s rules relating to the

implementation of non-recurring

services. In doing so, we note that we

have found it necessary to waive the

implementation deadline for

nonrecurring services for Funding Years

1 and 2. We again find it necessary to

waive that rule for Funding Year 3. As

noted by the Court of Appeals for the

D.C. Circuit, agency rules are presumed

valid. The Commission’s rules,

however, may be waived for good cause

shown, where the particular facts make

strict compliance inconsistent with the

public interest. Waiver of the deadline

for implementation of non-recurring

services is therefore appropriate only if

special circumstances warrant a

deviation from the general rule, and

such a deviation would serve the public

interest.

10. Currently, the Commission’s rules

require schools and libraries to

implement services for which discounts

have been committed by the

Administrator within the funding year

the discounts were granted. In Funding

Years 1 and 2, we found it necessary to

extend this service implementation

deadline from June 30 to September 30,

thereby allowing schools and libraries to

implement non-recurring services in the

summer months, when schools were in

recess. We find that many schools and

libraries have been unable to meet the

June 30 implementation deadline in

previous years due to a variety of

reasons, including delays in funding

commitments and events beyond the

service provider’s control, such as

manufacturing delays and natural

disasters. For these reasons, we find

good cause to waive, on our own

motion, the June 30, 2001 deadline for

implementation of non-recurring

services for all Funding Year 3

applicants and extend the deadline to

September 30, 2001.

11. We conclude that the public

interest is best served if all schools and

libraries receiving Funding Year 3

discounts on non-recurring services

have the benefit of an extension of the

deadline. Similar to the Commission’s

actions in Funding Year 1 and Funding

Year 2, we also grant Funding Year 3

applicants a limited exemption from the

Commission’s competitive bidding

requirements. Contracts for nonrecurring services approved for Funding

Year 3 discounts may be voluntarily

extended until September 30, 2001.

12. Based on this record that has

necessitated extensions during the last

three funding years, we propose to

modify our rules relating to the use of

funds for non-recurring services. We

tentatively conclude that it is

appropriate for schools and libraries to

have the flexibility of additional time to

implement non-recurring services. We

propose a rule change that would allow

schools and libraries to implement nonrecurring services by September 30,

following the close of the funding year.

We seek comment on this proposal.

13. For certain qualified applicants

who are unable to meet the September

30 deadline, we propose to extend the

deadline for implementation of nonrecurring services. Specifically, we

propose to implement a rule to permit

qualified applicants to extend the

deadline for implementation of nonrecurring services if they satisfy one of

the following proposed criteria:

applicants whose funding commitment

decision letters were issued by the

Administrator on or after March 1 of the

funding year; applicants who received

service provider change authorizations

or service substitution authorizations

from the Administrator on or after

March 1 of the funding year; applicants

whose service providers were unable to

complete implementation for reasons

beyond the service provider’s control; or

applicants who have their funding

disbursements delayed while the

Administrator investigates their

application for program compliance.

Under the proposed rule, if one of the

conditions was satisfied before March 1,

they would have until the subsequent

September 30 to complete

implementation. If one of the conditions

was satisfied after March 1, applicants

would have until September 30 of the

following year to complete

implementation. We seek comment on

this proposal.

14. As noted, in each year of the

program, the Commission has ordered a

waiver of its rules and extended the

deadline for receipt of non-recurring

services. Changing the deadline would

provide schools and libraries, as well as

the Administrator, with the certainty of

a deadline that experience has shown is

more realistic, based on the needs of the

various program participants. We

tentatively conclude that the proposed

rule change provides clarity to the

Administrator and applicants by

establishing a deadline for

implementation of non-recurring

services for schools and libraries that

are unable to meet the original deadline

due to circumstances beyond their

control. Implementation of this policy

should ensure schools and libraries are

not penalized when they are not

responsible for missing the installation

deadline. Ultimately, these

administrative modifications to the

rules should allow all schools and

libraries to schedule implementation of

non-recurring services over the summer

months.

15. In addition, we also propose to

grant a limited extension of the

Commission’s competitive bidding rules

for contracts for non-recurring services.

Under this proposal, contracts for nonrecurring services could be voluntarily

extended to coincide with the

appropriate deadline for

implementation. Parties would not,

however, be able to extend other

contractual provisions beyond the dates

established by the Commission’s rules

without complying with the competitive

bidding process. We seek comment on

this proposal.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

16. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared this Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the

possible significant economic impact on

small entities by the policies and rules

proposed in this FNPRM. Written public

comments are requested on this IRFA.

Comments must be identified as

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23207

responses to the IRFA and must be filed

by the deadlines for comments on the

FNPRM provided. The Commission will

send a copy of the FNPRM, including

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration (SBA). In addition, the

FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries

thereof) will be published in the Federal

Register.

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

17. In this FNPRM, we propose a

revised method for allocating discounts

to schools and libraries under the

federal universal service mechanism

when there is insufficient funding to

support all requests for internal

connections. Specifically, we seek

comment on a proposed rule change to

give funding priority to requests for

internal connections made by

individual schools and libraries that did

not receive funding commitments for

internal connections during the

previous funding year.

18. We also seek comment on

proposed administrative modifications

to our rules to provide additional time

for recipients under the schools and

libraries universal service support

mechanism to implement contracts or

agreements with service providers for

non-recurring services. First, we

propose to extend the deadline for

receipt of non-recurring services from

June 30, to September 30 following the

close of the funding year. Second, we

propose to establish a deadline for the

implementation of non-recurring

services for certain qualified applicants

who are unable to complete

implementation by the September 30

deadline.

2. Legal Basis

19. The legal basis for this FNPRM is

contained in sections 1 through 4, 201

through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended by the Telecommunications

Act of 1996, and § 1.411 of the

Commission’s rules.

3. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities To Which

Rules Will Apply

20. The RFA directs agencies to

provide a description of and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of

small entities that may be affected by

the proposed rules, if adopted. 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 that: Is

independently owned and operated; is

not dominant in its field of operation;

and satisfies any additional criteria

established by the Small Business

Administration (SBA). A small

organization is generally ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.’’ Nationwide, as of

1992, there were approximately 275,801

small organizations. ‘‘Small

governmental jurisdiction’’ generally

means ‘‘governments of cities, counties,

towns, townships, villages, school

districts, or special districts, with a

population of less than 50,000.’’ As of

1992, there were approximately 85,006

such jurisdictions in the United States.

This number includes 38,978 counties,

cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96

percent, have populations of fewer than

50,000. The Census Bureau estimates

that this ratio is approximately accurate

for all governmental entities. Thus, of

the 85,006 governmental entities, we

estimate that 81,600 (96 percent) are

small entities.

21. Under the schools and libraries

universal service support mechanism,

which provides support for elementary

and secondary schools and libraries, an

elementary school is generally ‘‘a nonprofit institutional day or residential

school that provides elementary

education, as determined under state

law.’’ A secondary school is generally as

‘‘a non-profit institutional day or

residential school that provides

secondary education, as determined

under state law,’’ and not offering

education beyond grade 12. For-profit

schools and libraries, and schools and

libraries with endowments in excess of

$50,000,000, are not eligible to receive

discounts under the program, nor are

libraries whose budgets are not

completely separate from any schools.

Certain other statutory definitions apply

as well. The SBA has defined as small

entities elementary and secondary

schools and libraries having $5 million

or less in annual receipts. In funding

year 2 (July 1, 1999 to June 20, 2000)

approximately 83,700 schools and 9,000

libraries received funding under the

schools and libraries universal service

mechanism. Although we are unable to

estimate with precision the number of

these entities that would qualify as

small entities under SBA’s definition,

we estimate that fewer than 83,700

schools and 9,000 libraries would be

affected annually by the rules proposed

in this FNPRM, under current operation

of the program.

4. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

22. The measures under consideration

in this FNPRM would, if adopted, result

in no additional reporting.

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

23. The RFA requires an agency to

describe any significant alternatives that

it has considered in reaching its

proposed approach, which may include

the following four alternatives (among

others): The establishment of differing

compliance and reporting requirements

or timetables that take into account the

resources available to small entities; the

clarification, consolidation, or

simplification of compliance or

reporting requirements under the rule

for small entities; the use of

performance, rather than design,

standards; and an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for

small entities.

24. The Commission seeks comment

on two alternatives relating to the

allocation of discounts to schools and

libraries under the federal universal

service mechanism when there is

insufficient funding to support all

requests for internal connections. Under

the Commission’s current rules, the

Administrator would allocate the

available funds among applicants in the

90 percent discount level on a pro rata

basis, so that each applicant would

receive only a portion of the amount

requested. If applicants were to receive

only a pro rata portion of the support

they requested, we are concerned that

less affluent schools and libraries would

be unable to finance the additional

funding burden. We seek to minimize

the impact on schools and libraries with

less resources and propose to give

funding priority to requests for internal

connections made by individual schools

and libraries that did not receive

funding commitments for internal

connections during the previous

funding year.

25. In addition, the Commission seeks

comments on two proposals relating to

the deadline for implementation of nonrecurring services. First, the

Commission proposes to extend the

deadline for implementation of nonrecurring services from June 30 of each

funding year to September 30. Second,

the Commission proposes to establish

an extended deadline for certain

qualified applicants who are unable to

meet the September 30 deadline. Under

these proposals, we aim to provide

schools and libraries with additional

23208 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

time to complete installation and

minimize the harm that may affect small

entities due to the shorter deadline.

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

26. None.

B. Comment Due Dates and Filing

Procedures

27. We invite comment on the issues

and questions set forth in the FNPRM of

Proposed Rulemaking and Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

contained herein. Pursuant to applicable

procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission’s rules,

interested parties may comment on or

before May 23, 2001, and reply

comment on or before May 30, 2001.

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 24,121, May 1, 1998.

V. Ordering Clauses

28. Pursuant to the authority

contained in sections 1–4, 201–205, 254,

303(r), and 403 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, and §§ 0.91,

0.291, 1.3, and 1.411 of the

Commission’s rules, this Further Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking and Order is

adopted.

29. The deadline for the

implementation of non-recurring

services in Funding Year 3 of the

schools and libraries universal support

mechanism for all applicants is

extended from June 30, 2001 to

September 30, 2001.

30. Applicants in Funding Year 3 may

extend existing contracts for nonrecurring services until September 30,

2001, without having to comply with

the Commission’s competitive bidding

requirements.

31. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking and Order, including the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–11514 Filed 5–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 26

[Docket OST–2000–7639]

RIN 2105–AC88

Participation by Disadvantaged

Business Enterprises in Department of

Transportation Financial Assistance

Programs; Memorandum of

Understanding With the Small

Business Administration; Uniform

Forms and Other Revisions

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Transportation (DOT or the Department)

is proposing revisions to the

Department’s regulations for its

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

(DBE) program (49 CFR part 26). In its

final DBE rule the Department reserved

publication of a uniform reporting form

and a uniform certification application

form for a later date. This document

proposes those forms. In addition, this

document proposes implementation

procedures for a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between DOT

and the U.S. Small Business

Administration (SBA). The MOU

streamlines certification procedures for

participation in SBA’s 8(a) Business

Development (8(a) BD) and Small

Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

programs, and DOT’s DBE program for

small and disadvantaged businesses.

Finally, this document proposes

substantive changes to several

provisions, including: Personal net

worth, retainage, the size standard,

proof of ethnicity, confidentiality, proof

of economic disadvantage, and DBE

credit for trucking firms.

DATES: Comments should be received no

later than June 7, 2001. Late-filed

comments will be considered to the

extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should

send comments to Docket Clerk, Docket

No. OST–2000–7639, Department of

Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW.,

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.

We request that, in order to minimize

burdens on the docket clerk’s staff,

commenters send three copies of their

comments to the docket. Commenters

wishing to have their submissions

acknowledged should include a

stamped, self-addressed postcard with

their comments. The docket clerk will

date stamp the postcard and return it to

the commenter. Comments will be

available for inspection at the above

address from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura A. Aguilar, Attorney, Office of

Environmental, Civil Rights, and

General Law, Department of

Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW.,

Room 10102, Washington, DC 20590,

phone numbers (202) 366–0365 (voice),

(202) 366–9170 (fax), (202) 755–7687

(TDD), laura.aguilar@ost.dot.gov (email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 2, 1999, the Department

published a final rule revising its

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

(DBE) program. The new regulations (49

CFR part 26) replaced 49 CFR part 23,

except for the airport concessions

regulations. In shaping the final rule,

the Department responded to 600

comments on its December 1992 Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and

300 comments on its May 1997

Supplemental Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (SNPRM). The Department

also participated in the Clinton

Administration’s review of affirmative

action programs and listened carefully

to Congressional debate during the

reauthorization of the Department’s DBE

program in the Transportation Equity

for the 21st Century (TEA–21). The final

rule also incorporates requirements set

forth in the Supreme Court’s June 1995

decision in Adarand v. Pen ̃ a. The result

is a narrowly tailored program that

provides a ‘‘level playing field’’ for

small socially and economically

disadvantaged businesses.

There are three different parts

addressed in this document. The first

part addresses uniform forms. In the

final rule, the Department stated that it

would develop a single reporting form

and a standard DOT application form

for DBE eligibility. The Department did

not want to delay the issuance of the

final rule, so it reserved the date on

which the uniform form requirements

would go into effect. This document

addresses both of these forms. The

second part addresses the

implementation of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between the DOT

and the Small Business Administration

(SBA). The MOU streamlines

certification procedures for

participation in SBA’s 8(a) Business

Development (8(a) BD) and Small

Disadvantaged Business (SDB) programs

and DOT’s DBE program. The final part

proposes substantive changes to several

provisions, including: personal net

worth, retainage, proof of ethnicity,