|
Home DBE Program DBE Final Rule
DBE Final Rule
Prev | Index | Next
SUMMARY
This final rule revises the Department of Transportation's regulations for its disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program.
The DBE program is intended to remedy past and current discrimination
against disadvantaged business enterprises, ensure a level playing field and foster equal opportunity in DOT-assisted contracts, improve the flexibility and efficiency of the DBE program, and reduce burdens on small businesses. This final rule replaces the former DBE regulation, which now contains only the rules for the separate DBE
program for airport concessions, with a new regulation. The new
regulation reflects President Clinton's policy to mend, not end,
affirmative action programs. It modifies the Department's DBE program
in light of developments in case law requiring narrow tailoring of
such programs and last year's Congressional debate concerning the
continuation of the DBE program. It responds to comments on the
Department's December 1992 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and its
May 1997 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
DATES
This rule is effective March 4, 1999. Comments on Paperwork
Reduction Act matters should be received by April 5, 1999; however,
late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESS
Persons wishing to comment on Paperwork Reduction Act
matters (see discussion at end of preamble) should send comments to
Docket Clerk, Docket No. OST-97-2550, Department of Transportation, 400
7th Street, SW., Room 4107, Washington, DC 20590. We emphasize that the
docket is open only with respect to Paperwork Reduction Act matters,
and the Department is not accepting comments on other aspects of the
regulation. 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 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, SW., Room 10424
Washington, DC 20590
Phone numbers (202) 366-9306 (voice)
(202) 366-9313 (fax)
(202) 755-7687 (TDD)
Email bob.ashby@ost.dot.gov
David J. Goldberg
Office of Environmental, Civil Rights and General Law
Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, SW., Room 5432
Washington, DC 20590
Phone number (202) 366-8023 (voice)
(202) 366-8536 (fax)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Background
The Department has the important responsibility of ensuring that
firms competing for DOT-assisted contracts are not disadvantaged by
unlawful discrimination. For eighteen years, the Department's most
important tool for meeting this responsibility has been its
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. This program began in
1980. Originally, the program was a minority/women's business
enterprise program established by regulation under the authority of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination
statutes that apply to DOT financial assistance programs. See 49 CFR
part 23.
In 1983, Congress enacted, and President Reagan signed, the first
statutory DBE provision. This statute applied primarily to small firms
owned and controlled by minorities in the Department's highway and
transit programs. Firms owned and controlled by women, and the
Department's airport program, remained under the original 1980
regulatory provisions. In 1987, Congress enacted, and President Reagan
signed, statutes expanding the program to airports and to women-owned
firms. In 1991 (for highway and transit programs) and 1992 (for airport
programs), Congress enacted, and President Bush signed, statutes
reauthorizing the expanded DBE program.
After each statutory amendment, and at other times to resolve
program issues, the Department amended part 23. The result has been
that part 23 has become a patchwork quilt of a regulation. In addition,
years of interpretation by various grantees and different DOT offices
has created confusion and inconsistency in program administration.
These problems, particularly in the area of certification, were
criticized in General Accounting Office reports. The Department's
desire to improve program administration and make the rule a more
unified whole led to our publication of a December 1992 notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The Department received about 600 comments on this NPRM. The
Department carefully reviewed these comments and, by early 1995, had
prepared a draft final rule responding to them. However, in light of
the Supreme Court's June 1995 decision in Adarand v. Pena and the
Administration's review of affirmative action programs, the Department
conducted further review of the DBE program. As a result, rather than
issuing a final rule, we issued a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) in May 1997. This SNPRM incorporated responses to
the comments on the 1992 NPRM and proposed further changes in the
program, primarily in response to the ``narrow tailoring'' requirements
of Adarand. We received about 300 comments on the SNPRM. The Department
has carefully considered these comments, and the final rule responds to
them. The final rule also specifically complies with the requirements
that the courts have established for a narrowly tailored affirmative
action program.
At the same time that the Department was working on this final
rule, Congress once again considered reauthorization of the DBE
program. In both the House and the Senate, opponents of affirmative
action sponsored amendments that would have effectively ended the
program. In both cases, bipartisan majorities defeated the amendments.
The final highway/transit authorization legislation, known as the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), retains the
DBE program. In shaping this final rule, the Department has listened
carefully to what both supporters and opponents of the program have
said in Congressional debates.
Prev | Index | Next
|