[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42615-42619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17474]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
7 CFR Part 1735
RIN 0572-AB53
General Policies, Types of Loans, Loan Requirements--
Telecommunications Program
AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is amending its regulations
to provide that applicants may seek financial assistance to provide
mobile telecommunications service without regard to whether the
applicant is providing basic local exchange service in the territory to
be served. RUS is also clarifying its regulations with regard to the
application of nonduplication provisions and state telecommunications
modernization plans to mobile telecommunications services. In addition,
RUS has included criteria for determining ``reasonably adequate
service'' levels for mobile telecommunications service. This final 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: This rule is effective July 11, 2000.
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 rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB).
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS has determined that this 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, must be exhausted
prior to initiating litigation against the Department or its agencies.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
RUS has determined that this 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 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 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 rule is listed in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance programs under numbers 10.851, Rural
Telephone Loans and
[[Page 42616]]
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,
20402-9325. Telephone: (202) 512-1800.
Executive Order 12372
This rule 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 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
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 (Pub. L. 104-104) and
regulatory actions by the Federal Communications Commission 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 RUS-financed systems to offer a wider array of services and
to operate more efficiently.
RUS regulations currently stipulate that an entity must provide or
propose to provide the basic local exchange telephone service needs of
rural areas to be eligible for RUS financing (7 CFR 1735.14, Borrower
Eligibility) and that loans cannot be made for facilities to serve
subscribers outside the borrower's local exchange service area (7 CFR
1735.17, Facilities Financed). The Telecommunications Act of 1996,
however, made the term ``basic local exchange service'' obsolete. The
law mandates that universally available and affordable
telecommunications services, including access to 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
telecommunications services to rural areas is to make certain providers
of services, in addition to providers of local exchange services,
eligible for RUS financing. Mobile telecommunications services are
included among the telecommunications services financeable under the
Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) and among those contemplated in the
Telecommunication Act of 1996. Therefore, RUS believes that, in
addition to wireline service, mobile telecommunications services should
be made available in all rural areas. As such, RUS is deleting its
requirement that all borrowers provide local exchange service. Mobile
telecommunications service, which allows the user to move within the
service area while making and receiving telephone calls and other
services, is fundamentally different from wireline service and is not,
therefore, duplicative under the RE Act. Since mobile
telecommunications services do not and cannot serve the same function
as contemplated in state telecommunications modernization plans (TMPs)
for wireline services (see 7 CFR 1751.106), RUS policy is to consider a
borrower receiving a loan to finance such services to be participating
in the state's plan so long as the loan funds are not used in a manner
that, in RUS' opinion, is inconsistent with the borrower achieving the
goals contained in the plan. RUS will continue to follow this policy
regardless of whether the borrower provides any local exchange
services. In addition, RUS has included criteria for determining
``reasonably adequate service'' levels for mobile telecommunications
service.
RUS regulations are also utilized by the Governor of the Rural
Telephone Bank in carrying out the loan program of the Rural Telephone
Bank (the Bank); therefore, these policy revisions would apply to loans
made by the Bank, as well.
Comments
RUS received eight comments regarding the proposed rule, published
at 65 FR 6922 on February 11, 2000, which were taken into consideration
in preparing the final rule. A list of the commenters and comment
summaries and responses follows:
1. Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA).
2. Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (FTC).
3. Joint comments submitted from the National Rural Telecom
Association, Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
Telecommunications Companies, United States Telecom Association and
the Western Rural Telephone Association, (the Associations).
4. National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC).
5. National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA).
6. Noverr Publishing, Inc. (NPI).
7. Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative (RTFC).
8. Western Wireless Corporation (WWC).
Comment: NPI, a mobile wireless telephone service, supports the
proposed amendments to the existing regulations, stating that they will
increase rural access to advanced telecommunications technology. CTIA
and WWC also support the expansion of the RUS loan program to
facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunications services to
rural areas. They believe that the proposed rule correctly recognizes
that wireless services fall within the definition of ``telephone
service'' as defined by Congress for RUS. CTIA and WWC support RUS'
conclusion that prudent public policy ensures that consumers in rural
areas have access to wireless and advanced telecommunications services
comparable to that of their urban counterparts. However, CTIA, WWC, and
FTC recommended that RUS go further to encourage the development of
competitive telecommunications services in rural areas between wireless
and wireline service providers. They stated that RUS policies should
facilitate wireline-wireless competition. They further stated that the
proposed rule should be amended by removing the word ``incidentally''
to allow rural consumers to receive the benefits of genuine facilities-
based competition. RUS' new rules should encourage multiple competing
carriers to provide service to presently unserved and underserved rural
markets.
Reply: RUS appreciates the support for its efforts to expand modern
telecommunications in rural areas. However, unless authorized by the
provisions of the RE Act, RUS is prohibited from making a loan that
results in ``duplication of lines, facilities, or systems providing
reasonably adequate services * * *.'' (7 U.S.C. 922) (hereinafter
referred to as ``duplication''). Replies to other comments explain that
RUS believes that wireline and mobile service do not duplicate each
other. RUS' mission is to ensure that rural consumers have access to
modern telecommunications service including wireless and advanced
telecommunications services comparable to urban and suburban
subscribers. The rule, therefore,
[[Page 42617]]
promotes the financing of mobile service where such service is non-
existent or is determined to be inadequate.
Comment: CTIA and WWC stated that RUS should modify its rules to
specify that, because states are federally preempted from requiring
certificates of convenience (CCN) and necessity for wireless providers,
Sec. 1735.12(a) of the rule does not apply to wireless carriers, and
mobile wireless carriers should be subject to Sec. 1735.12(b) instead.
Reply: The RE Act dictates what action RUS will take when borrowers
have a CCN or do not have a CCN. RUS will make a nonduplication finding
in those cases where one is required.
Comment: CTIA and WWC further recommended that Sec. 1735.12(d) of
the proposed rule be revised to insure that it does not impose greater
requirements on commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) carriers than
those imposed by the FCC. Thus, RUS should hold that the clarity,
reliability and signal strength requirements contained in proposed
Sec. 1735.12(d)(2) and (3) are met so long as a wireless provider is
operating within the parameters of its FCC license, and that the mobile
911 requirements of proposed Sec. 1735.12(d)(5) are consistent with
those established by the FCC. NRTC recommended that the proposed
requirements for mobile telecommunications service be interconnected
with the public switched telephone network (PSTN) and that mobile 911
service be available to all subscribers, should not be determinative of
eligibility for RUS loans. NRTC stated that the safety advantages of
wireless technology do not depend on access to the PSTN or 911.
Businesses and individuals using mobile wireless services not connected
to the PSTN may still report emergency situations at the scene, rather
than going to the nearest telephone. NRTC recommended that RUS
eliminate the requirements of interconnection (Sec. 1735.12(d)(4)) and
911 availability (Sec. 1735.12(d)(5)) in its proposed rule changes.
Reply: The criteria used in determining if service is reasonably
adequate are designed to ensure that no rural area is trapped with
inferior, substandard service. RUS has, therefore, established criteria
to ensure that service being provided is adequate. RUS will consider
all criteria in Sec. 1735.12(d) before making a determination as to
whether a loan can be made based on a finding of inadequate service.
RUS and the FCC have different roles. RUS' function is to promote and
finance telecommunications service in rural areas. RUS is prohibited
from financing duplication. The service features described in
determining adequate service are a minimum standard of service RUS
believes present-day subscribers should receive.
Comment: CTIA and WWC recommended that RUS should also implement
proposed Sec. 1735.12(d)(8), which allows the Administrator to impose
``any other criteria * * * determine[d] to be applicable,'' in a manner
that ensures that wireless carriers applying for RUS loans are not
subjected to unreasonable requirements or provisions that conflict with
FCC rules and policies. In addition, RUS should likewise implement
proposed Sec. 1735.12(d)(7), which precludes RUS loans from being used
to provide service ``at rates which render [it] unaffordable to a
majority of rural persons,'' in a manner that takes into account
competition in the wireless marketplace.
Reply: RUS appreciates the comment and will consider all relevant
circumstances in applying Sec. 1735.12(d) in a manner designed to
promote modern mobile service in rural areas. Allowing the RUS
Administrator the discretion to establish or evaluate ``other
criteria'' is necessary and prudent in the rapidly evolving
technological environment of the telecommunications industry. In
addition, since the Administrator is responsible to the taxpayers for
the security of the government's loans, he or she must be afforded the
ability to adequately assess unique or rare situations to determine
what is in the best interest of the rural residents measured against a
provider's ability to repay its debt. With regard to rates, the word
``majority'' in the proposed rule has been changed to ``significant
number.'' RUS believes that the mobile service offered at unaffordable
rates is not ``available'' if it is offered at rates that are
unaffordable to a significant number of persons, and cannot, therefore,
be adequate. Financing for mobile wireless service will only be
provided where such facilities and the resulting service do not
currently exist or is found to be inadequate.
Comment: The Associations stated that RUS should not distinguish
between mobile telecommunications service and wireline
telecommunications service. The Rural Electrification Act defines
``telephone service'' so as to include both. The two kinds of service
duplicate each other if both are offered in the same area.
Reply: RUS believes that mobile and wireline telecommunications
services are easily distinguishable from each other. The most obvious
difference is that wireline service reaches only a fixed location while
a receiver for mobile service allows the subscriber to send and receive
communications while moving within a wide area. There is also a
significant difference in capacity, with the wireline facilities being
able to handle a significantly larger volume of information. Wireline's
greater capacity is reflected in the difference in the pricing of the
two services with subscribers being predominantly charged a fixed
monthly rate while mobile service subscribers are charged rates that
are more sensitive to usage levels. The RE Act definition of
``telephone service'' is sufficiently broad to allow RUS to finance
wireline services and mobile services. Neither the definition nor any
other provision of the RE Act prevents the RUS from financing more than
a single provider of non-duplicating services in a specific area.
Comment: The Associations stated that Congress never envisioned RUS
financing telecommunications competition. Neither the RE Act nor the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives RUS the authority to finance
competition.
Reply: As noted in the reply to the previous comment, the mobile
and wireline services are distinct and, therefore, do not duplicate or
compete with each other when offered in the same area. Moreover, the RE
Act prohibits RUS financing of duplication, not competition, so that
RUS may provide financing in some situations, even though another
provider purports to serve the same area. The RE Act makes another
distinction, between (1) cases where there is ``a state regulatory body
having authority to regulate telephone service and to require
certificates of convenience and necessity,'' 7 U.S.C. 922, and (2)
cases where there is not such a body. Non-duplication findings are
required only in the second.
Comment: RTFC stated that RUS should concentrate on financing
telecommunications services in rural areas, instead of promoting
competition and also asserted that there are other sources of funds for
mobile telecommunications services.
Reply: RUS' mission is to promote and finance the widest range of
telecommunications services defined in the RE Act throughout rural
America. RUS is not simply a lender of last resort as the comment
implies. Just as RUS in the last 50 years led extension of telephone
service in rural areas, it looks forward to leading in the deployment
of mobile wireless and advanced
[[Page 42618]]
telecommunications services currently underway.
Comment: The Associations stated that RUS, by financing wireless
and wireline services in the same area, increases the risk of default
on its loans and jeopardizes provision of services in the area.
Reply: RUS is alert to the possibility of the risks mentioned in
the comment. The agency believes that mobile wireless and wireline are
distinct and do not, therefore, duplicate each other to any significant
degree. Therefore, entry of a mobile telecommunications provider into
an area poses little financial risk to an existing wireline provider.
The language in the regulation states that generally, RUS will not make
a loan to another entity to provide the same service (i.e., mobile
where mobile already exists) already being provided by a RUS borrower
unless the borrower is unable to meet its obligations to RUS (this
section, in proposed rule as an amendment to Sec. 1735.14, will instead
be added to Sec. 1735.17). As a Federal lender, it is RUS'
responsibilities to ensure, to the best of its ability, security for
all outstanding and future loans, and to encourage telecommunications
services in rural areas.
Comment: In the proposed regulations, the Associations assert that
RUS fundamentally changed its definition of adequate telephone service
by making the existing definition of adequate service apply only to
wireline service and by adopting a new definition of mobile
telecommunications services.
Reply: The RE Act requires the Administrator of RUS to determine
that a loan will not result in the ``duplication of lines, facilities,
or systems, providing reasonably adequate services''. If the existing
service is not reasonably adequate, an RUS loan to improve service does
not result in duplication. Mobile service is distinct from wireline
service thereby requiring a definition of adequacy that properly
reflects its uniqueness. With rapidly advancing technologies, the
quality of telecommunication service expected by all persons has risen
dramatically in recent years. Therefore, the new definition of adequate
mobile telecommunications service reflects these developments.
Comment: The Associations assert that RUS does not have authority
to determine the affordability of wireline or wireless service.
Reply: The new regulations state that ``mobile telecommunications
service is not provided at rates which render the service unaffordable
to a majority of the rural persons'' is one of the criteria RUS will
use in determining whether existing mobile telecommunications service
is adequate (7 CFR 1735.12(d)(7)). RUS believes that service available
only at extremely high rates that render it inaccessible to a
significant number of rural subscribers is not adequate service. The
evaluation of whether rates are affordable to rural subscribers is made
only to determine whether RUS will make a loan in the particular
situation and is clearly different from the regulatory judgement of
whether rates are reasonable. Therefore, RE Act purposes would be
furthered by a loan to finance mobile telecommunications services at
reasonable rates that are affordable to rural persons who would not
otherwise have access to such services.
Comment: The Associations believe that RUS should not eliminate the
requirement in its existing regulations that borrowers must provide
basic exchange service. Instead, RUS should amend its regulations to
authorize the financing of mobile and other advanced telecommunications
services for providers that are also providing basic exchange service.
Reply: Telecommunications providers offering basic local exchange
telephone service are eligible for RUS loans currently and will
continue to be eligible under the new regulations. The facilities used
to deliver mobile services are distinct from wireline facilities,
including those facilities that provide basic exchange service, and RUS
believes that treating mobile services separately will expedite their
expansion in rural areas. Limiting RUS funding of mobile services to
those companies providing basic exchange services would in most
instances mean that the existing telephone company could decide not to
provide mobile services and then prevent persons and businesses in its
service area from receiving the service from any other company as well.
Comment: The Associations stated that RUS cannot exempt carriers
from the statutory State telecommunications plan (TMP) requirements.
Reply: The RE Act requires, as a condition of receiving a loan,
that ``the applicant is a participant in the [TMP]'' for the state in
which the proposed service is located, ``if the plan was developed by
telephone borrowers under [the RE Act]'' (7 U.S.C. 935(d); 7 U.S.C.
948(b)(4)(B)). The statute sets forth requirements for a TMP that
contemplate only wireline carriers (see 7 U.S.C. 935(d)(3)) and
existing regulations have been developed utilizing that interpretation
(7 CFR 1751.101(d)). RUS believes that technologies that allow mobile
service to meet TMP standards will not be practical for a considerable
time, if ever, and that it was not Congress' intention to delay
expansion of mobile services in rural areas. Under the existing
interpretation of the TMP standards, RUS does not require that all of
the wireline services provided by a borrower be upgraded to comply with
the TMP, including services not covered by the loan. Instead, RUS
requires that loan funds be spent in a manner consistent with the
borrower achieving TMP standards (7 CFR 1751.103). RUS interprets the
provision in the same way for mobile loans--the borrower must not use
the funds in a manner inconsistent with achieving TMP standards. This
interpretation will facilitate both accomplishing TMP standards at the
earliest possible date and the expansion of mobile service in rural
areas.
This rule becomes effective on the date of publication in the
Federal Register because any further delay would contribute to denying
benefits to residents in rural areas. This rule is part of an
Administration initiative to ensure that rural areas receive access to
all types of telecommunications services--services already available to
urban residents. Part of the intent of that initiative is to provide
funding, this fiscal year (fiscal year 2000), to entities to provide
mobile telecommunications service where that service does not exist or
is inadequate. In order to do that, applicants must have time to
prepare and submit applications in accordance with this and other
applicable RUS regulations; RUS must also have adequate time to process
and approve eligible applications. A delay in the effective date of
this rule of 30 days, coupled with application preparation, review and
processing times, would undermine the ability to provide funding this
fiscal year, thereby denying benefit to rural residents.
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
amended as follows:
PART 1735--GENERAL POLICIES, TYPES OF LOANS, LOAN REQUIREMENTS--
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM
The authority citation for part 1735 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., 1921 et seq., and 6941 et seq.
[[Page 42619]]
2. In Sec. 1735.2, the following definitions are added in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 1735.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Mobile telecommunications service means the transmission of a radio
communication voice service between mobile and land or fixed stations,
or between mobile stations.
* * * * *
Public switched network means any common carrier switched network,
whether by wire or radio, including local exchange carriers,
interexchange carriers, and mobile telecommunications service
providers, that use the North American Numbering Plan in connection
with the provision of switched services.
RUS means the Rural Utilities Service, an agency of the United
States Department of Agriculture, successor to the Rural
Electrification Administration.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 1735.10 by:
A. Revising paragraph (b);
B. Redesignating paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) as (d), (e), and (f),
respectively; and
C. Adding a new paragraph (c).
This revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 1735.10 General.
* * * * *
(b) RUS will not make hardship loans, RUS cost-of-money loans, or
RTB loans for any wireline local exchange service or similar fixed-
station voice service that, in RUS' opinion, is inconsistent with the
borrower achieving the requirements stated in the State's
telecommunication modernization plan within the time frame stated in
the plan (see 7 CFR part 1751, subpart B), unless RUS has determined
that achieving the requirements as stated in such plan is not
technically or economically feasible.
(c) A borrower applying for a loan to finance mobile
telecommunication services shall be considered to be a participant in
the State's telecommunication modernization plan so long as the loan
funds are not used in a manner that, in the opinion of the
Administrator, is inconsistent with the borrower achieving the goals
set forth in the plan.
* * * * *
4. Amend Sec. 1735.12 by:
A. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
B. Adding new paragraphs (d) and (e).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 1735.12 Nonduplication.
* * * * *
(c) RUS shall consider the following criteria for any wireline
local exchange service or similar fixed-station voice service in
determining whether such service is reasonably adequate:
* * * * *
(d) RUS shall consider the following criteria for any of mobile
telecommunications service in determining whether such service is
reasonably adequate:
(1) The extent to which area coverage is being provided as
described in 7 CFR 1735.11.
(2) Clear and reliable call transmission is provided with
sufficient channel availability.
(3) The mobile telecommunications service signal strength is at
least -85dBm (decibels expressed in miliwatts).
(4) The mobile telecommunications service is interconnected with
the public switched network.
(5) Mobile 911 service is available to all subscribers, when
requested by the local government entity responsible for this service.
(6) No Federal or State regulatory commission having jurisdiction
has determined that the quality, availability, or reliability of the
service provided is inadequate.
(7) Mobile telecommunications service is not provided at rates
which render the service unaffordable to a significant number of rural
persons.
(8) Any other criteria the Administrator determines to be
applicable to the particular case.
(e) RUS does not consider mobile telecommunications service a
duplication of existing wireline local exchange service or similar
fixed-station voice service. RUS may finance mobile telecommunications
systems designed to provide eligible services in rural areas under the
Rural Electrification Act even though the services provided by the
system may incidentally overlap services of existing mobile
telecommunications providers.
Sec. 1735.14 [Amended]
5. Amend Sec. 1735.14 by:
A. Removing paragraph (c)(1); and
B. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) as (c)(1) and (c)(2)
respectively.
6. Amend Sec. 1735.17 by:
A. Removing paragraph (c)(3);
B. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) as (c)(3) and (c)(4),
respectively, redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e); and
C. Adding new paragraph (d):
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 1735.17 Facilities Financed.
* * * * *
(d) Generally, RUS will not make a loan to another entity to
provide the same telecommunications service in an area served by an
incumbent RUS telecommunications borrower providing such service. RUS
may, however, consider an application for a loan to provide the same
type of service being provided by an incumbent RUS borrower if the
Administrator determines that the incumbent borrower is unable to meet
its obligations to the government, including the obligation to provide
service set forth in its loan documents and to repay its loans.
Dated: July 5, 2000.
Jill Long Thompson,
Under Secretary, Rural Development.
[FR Doc. 00-17474 Filed 7-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P