Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
23,151 words·~105 min read·
/register/2006/11/22/06-9364A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6820-AM-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26134; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-56-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EXTRA Flugzeugproduktions-und Vertriebs-GmbH Models EA-300, EA-300S, EA-300L, and EA-300/200 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive
(AD)2002-21-11, which applies to certain EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH (EXTRA) Model EA-300S airplanes. AD 2002-21-11 currently requires you to inspect, using a fluorescent dye check penetrant method, the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment for cracks, repair any cracks found, and modify the horizontal stabilizer. That AD also requires a limit on operation to the Normal category until the initial inspection and modification on airplanes with less than 200 hours time-in-service
(TIS)is done. Since we issued AD 2002-21-11, cracks have been found on Models EA-300L and EA-300/200 airplanes. Consequently, this proposed AD adds airplanes to the applicability and requires you to inspect and modify the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment, which could result in structural failure of the aft fuselage. This failure could lead to loss of control. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact EXTRA Flugzeugproduktions-und Vertriebs-GmbH, Schwarze Heide 21, D-46569 Huenxe, Germany; fax: (+49)-2858-9137-42. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-26134; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-56-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion Fatigue cracks at the horizontal stabilizer attachment were found on EXTRA Model EA-300S airplanes. These airplanes are utilized in aerobatic maneuvers, and the stress in the area of the horizontal stabilizer can lead to cracks in this area, as well as in the upper longerons and diagonal braces. This condition caused us to issue AD 2002-21-11, Amendment 39-12917 (67 FR 65479, October 25, 2002). AD 2002-21-11 currently requires the following on certain EXTRA Model EA-300S airplanes: • For all affected airplanes: an inspection of the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment for cracks using a fluorescent dye check penetrant method, repair of any cracks found, and modification of the horizontal stabilizer; and • On airplanes with less than 200 hours time-in-service as of December 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-21-11): a limit on operation to the Normal category until the initial inspection and modification is done. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the aviation authority for the European Union (EU), notified FAA of the need to supersede AD 2002-21-11 to address an unsafe condition that may exist or could develop on certain EXTRA Models EA-300, EA-300S, EA-300L, and EA-300/200 airplanes. EASA reports that while doing the inspections specified in Part I of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: D, on the entire fleet of EA-300 series airplanes, cracks were found on Model EA-300L airplanes. Recent inspections revealed cracks found on Model EA-300/200 airplanes. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to structural failure of the aft fuselage with consequent loss of control. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006. The service information describes procedures for: • Inspecting the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment for cracks; • Reinforcing the upper longeron in the area of the horizontal stabilizer attachment; and • Installing V-tubes to reinforce fuselage frame underneath the horizontal stabilizer attachment bracket. European Authority Aviation Information EASA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD No. 2006-0281, dated September 14, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Germany. These EXTRA Models EA-300, EA-300S, EA-300L, and EA-300/200 airplanes are manufactured in Germany and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, EASA has kept us informed of the situation described above. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we have examined EASA's findings, evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2002-21-11 with a new AD that would incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service information. This proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Differences Between the European Authority AD, the Service Bulletin, and This Proposed AD EASA AD No. 2006-0281, dated September 14, 2006, and EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006, allow 50-hour repetitive inspections of the horizontal stabilizer attachment with the option of installing the modification kits as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections for certain affected airplanes. This AD does not allow continued repetitive inspections. The FAA has determined that long-term continued operational safety will be better assured by design changes that remove the source of the problem rather than by repetitive inspections or other special procedures. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 134 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 24 work-hours × $80 per hour = $1,920 Not applicable $1,920 $1,920 × 134 = $257,280 We estimate the following costs to do the proposed modifications: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 40 work-hours × $80 per hour = $3,200 $200 $3,200 + $200 = $3,400 $3,400 × 134 = $455,600 For airplanes still covered under warranty, the manufacturer will provide warranty credit for up to 35 work-hours for the inspection and modification work, as stated on page 8 of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD)2002-21-11, Amendment 39-12917 (67 FR 65479, October 25, 2002) and adding the following new AD: **EXTRA Flugzeugproduktions-und Vertriebs-GMBH:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26134; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-56-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by December 22, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2002-21-11, Amendment 39-12917. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following airplanes that are certificated in any category: Models Serial numbers EA-300 01 through 62. EA-300L 01 through 71, 73 through 77, 79 through 83, 85 through 89, 91, and 92. EA-300S 01 through 29. EA-300/200 01 through 31 and 1032 through 1039. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment, which could result in structural failure of the aft fuselage. This failure could lead to loss of control. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Inspect, using a fluorescent dye penetrant method, the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment for cracks, as applicable. You may take “unless already done” credit for the inspections if you previously used Extra Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95 (pages 2-6 at Issue: C, dated July 15, 1998; and pages 1 and 7 through 11 at Issue: D, dated January 30, 2001)
(i)For Models EA-300S airplanes: Upon accumulating 250 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after December 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-21-11) or within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first
(ii)For Models EA-300, EA-300L, and EA-300/200 airplanes: Within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.
(iii)For all affected airplanes: If the modifications specified in Part II and Part III of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006, have already been incorporated, no further action is required. Follow Part I of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006.
(2)If cracks are found during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD in areas A, B, and C (as shown in Figure 1 of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006), weld the crack and modify the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment by installing the applicable modification kit (or FAA-approved equivalent parts) For all affected airplanes: Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where cracks are found, unless already done Follow Part II of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006.
(3)If no cracks are found during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, modify the upper longeron at the horizontal stabilizer attachment by installing the applicable modification kit (or FAA-approved equivalent parts) For all affected airplanes: Within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, unless already done Follow Part II of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006.
(4)For Models EA-300S and EA-300L airplanes only: Reinforce the fuselage frame underneath the horizontal stabilizer main spar attachment bracket by installing the applicable modification kit (or FAA-approved equivalent parts)
(i)For Model EA-300S: Within the next 200 hours TIS after December 17, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-21-11) or within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, unless already done
(ii)For Model EA-300L: Within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, unless already done. Follow Part III of EXTRA Service Bulletin No. 300-2-95, Issue: F, Dated: July 10, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(g)AMOCs approved for AD 2002-21-11 are [PK1]approved for this AD. Related Information
(h)The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)AD No. 2006-0281, dated September 14, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact EXTRA Flugzeugproduktions-und Vertriebs-GmbH, Schwarze Heide 21, D-46569 Huenxe, Germany; fax: (+49)-2858-9137-42. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-26134; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-56-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 15, 2006. Steve Thompson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-19762 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26378; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-230-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) Airplanes and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. These models may be referred to by their marketing designations as RJ100, RJ200, RJ440, CRJ100, CRJ200, CRJ440, and CL-65. The existing AD currently requires revising the Emergency Procedures section of the airplane flight manual
(AFM)to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway. The existing AD also requires revising the Abnormal Procedures section of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. The existing AD also requires revising the Normal section of the AFM to require a review of the location of certain circuit breakers and a functional check of the stabilizer trim system. The existing AD also requires installing circuit breaker identification collars and provides an optional terminating action for the requirements of the AD. This proposed AD would require doing the previously optional terminating action (installation of a new horizontal stabilizer trim control unit). This proposed AD results from a determination that the terminating action is necessary to address uncommanded horizontal stabilizer trim motion. We are proposing this AD to prevent horizontal stabilizer trim uncommanded motion, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7305; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-26378; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-230-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On October 13, 2006, we issued AD 2006-22-06, amendment 39-14803 (71 FR 63219, October 30, 2006), for certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. That AD requires revising the Emergency Procedures section of the airplane flight manual
(AFM)to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway. That AD also requires revising the Abnormal Procedures section of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. That AD also requires revising the Normal section of the AFM to require a review of the location of certain circuit breakers and a functional check of the stabilizer trim system. That AD also requires installing circuit breaker identification collars and provides an optional terminating action for the requirements of the AD. That AD resulted from reports of uncommanded horizontal stabilizer trim motion. We issued that AD to ensure that the flightcrew is advised of appropriate procedures to follow in the event of uncommanded movement or stabilizer trim runaway. Failure to follow these procedures could result in excessive uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator
(HSTA)and loss of ability to use trim switches to override uncommanded movement or yoke disconnect switches to disconnect the HSTA, which could result in reduction of or loss of pitch control and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The preamble to AD 2006-22-06 explains that we consider the requirements of that AD “interim action” and that we were considering further rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. The optional terminating action specified in AD 2006-22-06 (installation of a new, improved horizontal stabilizer trim control unit (HSTCU)) is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, mandated the terminating action and issued Canadian airworthiness directives CF-2006-20R1, dated October 4, 2006, and CF-2006-21R1, dated October 3, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-22-06 and would continue to require revising the Emergency, Normal, and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM and installing circuit breaker identification collars. This proposed AD would also require doing the terminating action (installation of a new HSTCU). Difference Between Canadian Airworthiness Directives and Proposed AD Although Canadian airworthiness directives CF-2006-20R1 and CF-2006-21R1 recommend accomplishing the terminating action within 12 months, this proposed AD would require accomplishment within 9 months in order to match the date the actions required by the Canadian airworthiness directives must be completed. We find that 9 months is an appropriate compliance time to complete the terminating action. This has been coordinated with TCCA. Change to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain only certain requirements of AD 2006-22-06. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2006-22-06 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph
(h)Paragraph (f). Paragraph
(i)Paragraph (g). Paragraph
(j)Paragraph (h). Paragraph
(k)Paragraph (i). Paragraph
(l)Paragraph (j). Paragraph
(m)Paragraph (l). Paragraph
(n)Paragraph (m). Paragraph
(o)Paragraph (k). Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate per hour is $80. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost AFM Revisions and Installation of Circuit Breaker Collars (required by AD 2006-22-06) 2 $3 $163 875 $142,625. Installation of HSTCU (new proposed action) 11 Between $2,530 and $3,995 Between $3,410 and $4,875 875 Between $2,983,750 and $4,265,625. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14803 (71 FR 63219, October 30, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26378; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-230-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 22, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-22-06. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive; and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive and 8000 through 8066 inclusive; certificated in any category. Note 1: The Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes may be referred to by their marketing designations as RJ100, RJ200, RJ440, CRJ100, CRJ200, CRJ440, and CL-65. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of uncommanded horizontal stabilizer trim motion. We are issuing this AD to prevent horizontal stabilizer trim uncommanded motion, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2006-22-06 Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Revisions
(f)Within 14 days after November 14, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-22-06), make the applicable AFM revisions specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD by incorporating the applicable Canadair (Bombardier) temporary revisions
(TRs)identified in Table 1 of this AD into the applicable AFM.
(1)For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes: Revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway and to advise the flightcrew of revised procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions.
(2)For Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes: Revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of revised procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway and in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions. Table 1.—TRs For Bombardier Model— Use— Dated— To the— CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes Canadair Challenger TR 604/21-1 October 3, 2006 Canadair Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1. CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes Canadair Regional Jet TR RJ/152-5 October 3, 2006 Canadair Regional Jet AFM, CSP A-012.
(g)When the applicable TR specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM and the applicable TR may be removed, provided the relevant information in the general revisions is identical to that in the TR. Installation of Circuit Breaker Identification Collars
(h)Within 14 days after November 14, 2006, install circuit breaker identification collars in accordance with Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision C, dated September 29, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes); or the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes); as applicable. Additional AFM Revision
(i)For Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes: Within 14 days after November 14, 2006, revise the Normal section of the Canadair Regional Jet AFM, CSP A-012, to include the statement specified in Figure 1 of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of Figure 1 of this AD into the AFM. EP22NO06.011 Note 2: When a statement identical to that in paragraph
(i)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
(j)For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes: Within 14 days after November 14, 2006, revise the Normal section of the Canadair Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1, to include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. “Prior to the flightcrew's first flight of the day, do the following actions: 1. Review the location of the STAB CH1 HSTCU and STAB CH2 HSTCU circuit breakers. 2. Check the stabilizer trim system as detailed in CL-604 AFM 'Normal Procedures' section titled ‘Flight Controls Trim Systems, Before Flight—First Flight of the Day.’ ” Note 3: When a statement identical to that in paragraph
(j)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. Previous Actions Accomplished According to Modification Summary Package
(k)Actions accomplished before November 14, 2006, in accordance with Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision A, dated September 18, 2006; or Revision B, dated September 27, 2006; are considered acceptable for compliance with the action specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD, provided that the circuit breaker collars meet the color requirements of Bombardier Modification Summary Package IS601R27410051, Revision C, dated September 29, 2006. New Requirements of This AD Terminating Action—Installation of New, Improved Part
(l)Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, install horizontal stabilizer trim control unit (HSTCU), part number (P/N) 601R92301-15 (vendor P/N 7060-10) or higher dash number, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147, dated September 28, 2006 (for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes); as applicable. After doing the installation, the AFM revisions required by paragraph
(f)of this AD may be removed from the applicable AFM, and the circuit breaker identification collars required by paragraph
(h)of this AD may be removed. After doing the installation, the AFM revision required by paragraphs
(i)and
(j)of this AD may also be removed from the AFM but operators should note that the functional check of the stabilizer trim system on the airplane's first flight of the day, as described in the AFM, must still be done. Note 4: Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147, dated September 28, 2006, refers to Sagem Service Bulletin HSTCU-27-011, dated September 22, 2006, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the installation. Service Bulletin Exception
(m)Although Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-27-029, dated September 28, 2006, specifies to return certain parts to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (n)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(o)Canadian airworthiness directives CF-2006-20R1, dated October 4, 2006, and CF-2006-21R1, dated October 3, 2006, also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 6, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-19798 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26236; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-66-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA—Groupe AEROSPATIALE Models TB 20 and TB 21 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as reports of interference between the wing spar lower boom and the wheel fairing attaching screw. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4059; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26236; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-66-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2006-0123, dated May 16, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states there are reports of interference between the wing spar lower boom and the wheel fairing attaching screw causing an unsafe condition. The interference could, if left uncorrected, reduce the fatigue life of the wing spar with potentially catastrophic results. The MCAI requires inspections and repairs as necessary to correct this unsafe condition. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EADS SOCATA has issued TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-148, ATA No. 57, dated December 2005. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 270 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 15 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $15,000 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,374,000, or $16,200 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **SOCATA—Groupe Aerospatiale:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26236; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-66-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by December 22, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to SOCATA Models TB 20 and TB 21 airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 9999 without repair REP 20.031 implemented on both sides, certificated in any category. Reason
(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states there are reports of interference between the wing spar lower boom and the wheel fairing attaching screw causing an unsafe condition. The interference could, if left uncorrected, reduce the fatigue life of the wing spar with potentially catastrophic results. The MCAI requires inspections and repairs as necessary to correct this unsafe condition. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within the next 100 hours time-in-service or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform an inspection of the wing spar lower boom and repair it as necessary, in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of the EADS SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-148, ATA No. 57, dated December 2005.
(2)If defect dimensions exceed the acceptable values given in the EADS SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-148, ATA No. 57, dated December 2005, or if the defect is not located in areas depicted in figure 2 of the EADS SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-148, ATA No. 57, dated December 2005, then the Type 1 or Type 2 repair solutions are not applicable. A written report shall be sent to the manufacturer as mentioned in section A.5 of the EADS SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-148, ATA No. 57, dated December 2005. In this case, all flight is prohibited until EADS SOCATA provides a repair solution or otherwise agrees to further flight. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4059; fax:
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(g)Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive No.: 2006-0123, dated May 16, 2006; and EADS SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-148, ATA No. 57, dated December 2005, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 14, 2006. Steven W. Thompson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-19801 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-140379-02; REG-142599-02] RIN 1545-BC07; 1545-BB23 General Allocation and Accounting Regulations Under Section 141; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that was published in the **Federal Register** on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56072) relating to the allocation of, and accounting for, tax-exempt bond proceeds for purposes of the private activity bond restrictions that apply under section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)and that apply in modified form to qualified 501(c)(3) bonds under section 145 of the Code. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Johanna Som Som de Cerff
(202)622-3980 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-140379-02; REG-142599-02) that is the subject of these corrections are under section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of pubic hearing (REG-140379-02; REG-142599-02) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-140379-02; REG-142599-02) that was the subject of FR Doc. 06-8202 is corrected as follows: 1. On page 56074, column 1, in the preamble under the paragraph heading, “Explanation of Provisions”, first paragraph of the column, line 5 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “uses, for example, governmental use and” is corrected to read “uses, that is, governmental use and”. § 1.141-6 [Corrected] 2. On page 56080, column 3, § 1.141-6(d)(4)(i), line 18, the language “in this paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this” is corrected to read “in paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this”. La Nita VanDyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Office of Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-19789 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. RM 2005-5] Retransmission of Digital Broadcast Signals Pursuant to the Cable Statutory License AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is extending the time in which reply comments can be filed in response to its Notice of Inquiry regarding the retransmission of digital television broadcast signals by cable operators under the Copyright Act. DATES: Reply Comments are due no later than December 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be brought to Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, 2221 S. Clark Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, Va. 22202, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office. If delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site (“CCAS”) located at 2nd and D Streets, NE, Washington, D.C. between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, LM 430, James Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC. Please note that CCAS will not accept delivery by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service or DHL. If sent by mail (including overnight delivery using U.S. Postal Service Express Mail), an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be addressed to U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Golant, Senior Attorney, and Tanya M. Sandros, Associate General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202)707-8380. Telefax:
(202)707-8366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 20, 2006, the Copyright Office initiated a proceeding to address several issues associated with the secondary retransmission of digital television broadcast signals by cable operators under Section 111 of the Copyright Act. 71 FR 54948 (Sept. 20, 2006). The Copyright Office sought comment on matters raised by the Motion Picture Association of America and Joint Sports Claimants in their Petition for Rulemaking regarding the simultaneous retransmission of digital and analog broadcast signals as well as the secondary retransmission of multiple streams of digital broadcast content. The Notice of Inquiry also sought comment on cable operator marketing and sales practices and equipment issues associated with the retransmission of digital broadcast signals that may result in possible changes to the Copyright Office‘s existing rules and the cable statements of account forms. Given the complexity of the issues raised in the Notice of Inquiry, and to provide the public with adequate time to respond to the comments filed in this proceeding, the Office has decided to extend the deadline for filing reply comments by a period of 14 days, making them due on December 18, 2006. Dated: November 17 , 2006 Tanya Sandros, Associate General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office. [FR Doc. E6-19794 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Chapter I [CC Docket No. 01-92; DA 06-2294] Missoula Intercarrier Compensation Reform Plan Phantom Traffic Proposal AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on a proposed process to address phantom traffic issues and a related proposal for the creation and exchange of call detail records filed by the Supporters of the Missoula Plan, an intercarrier compensation reform plan filed July 24, 2006 by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' Task Force on Intercarrier Compensation (the NARUC Task Force). DATES: Comments due on or before December 7, 2006, reply comments due on or before December 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CC Docket No. 01-92, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Agency Web Site:* *http://www.fcc.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS)/ *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* . • *E-mail:* To *randy.clarke@fcc.gov* . Include CC Docket No. 01-92 in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* To the attention of Randy Clarke at 202-418-1567. Include CC Docket No. 01-92 on the cover page. • *Mail:* Parties should send a copy of their filings to Randy Clarke, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 5-A360, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. *People with Disabilities:* To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* , including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Comment Filing Procedures” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer McKee, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division,
(202)418-1530, or Randy Clarke, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division,
(202)418-1587. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice, CC Docket No. 01-92, DA No. 06-2294, released November 8, 2006. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12th St. SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: *http://www.fcc.gov* . By the Public Notice, the Commission seeks comment on a proposal to address phantom traffic issues and a related proposal for the creation and exchange of call detail records. These proposals were contained in a written *ex parte* filed November 6, 2006 by the Supporters of the Missoula Plan, an intercarrier compensation reform plan filed July 24, 2006 by the NARUC Task Force. Supporters of the Missoula Plan include AT&T, BellSouth Corp., Cingular Wireless, Global Crossing, Level 3 Communications, and 336 members of the Rural Alliance, among others. According to its supporters, the original Missoula Plan sets forth a Comprehensive Solution for Phantom Traffic. As part of that solution, the Plan called “for the filing of an industry proposal for a uniform process for the creation and exchange of call detail records.” It also called “for the filing of a process to be used in the interim until the uniform process can be implemented fully.” The supporters of the Missoula Plan state that the November 6, 2006 *ex parte* filing meets these requirements. Interested parties may file comments on or before December 7, 2006 and reply comments on or before December 22, 2006. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS)or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of the proceeding, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number, in this case, CC Docket No. 01-92. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov* , and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Paper filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). Parties are strongly encouraged to file comments electronically using the Commission's ECFS. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties should also send a copy of their filings to Randy Clarke, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 5-A266, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to *Randy.Clarke@fcc.gov* . Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
(202)488-5300, or via e-mail to *fcc@bcpiweb.com* . Documents in CC Docket No. 01-92 will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th St. SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI, telephone
(202)488-5300, facsimile
(202)488-5563, TTY
(202)488-5562, e-mail *fcc@bcpiweb.com* . To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte rules.* 47 CFR 1.1200 *et seq.* Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Authority: 47 U.S.C. 152, 153, 154, 155. Federal Communications Commission. Thomas J. Navin, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-19657 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 17 [WT Docket No. 03-187; FCC 06-164] Effect of Communications Towers on Migratory Birds AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt measures to reduce migratory bird collisions with communications towers. The document is intended to develop the record in the Commission's August 2003 Migratory Bird Notice of Inquiry. Depending on the comments it receives in response to the document, the Commission may adopt substantive or procedural changes to its rules. DATES: Comments are due on or before January 22, 2007, reply comments are due on or before February 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 03-187, FCC 06-164, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site:* *http:// www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Mail:* Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. • *Accessible Formats:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) for filing comments either by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking, WT Docket No. 03-187. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/,* including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louis Peraertz, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
(202)418-1879. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 03-187, FCC 06-164, adopted November 3, 2006, and released November 7, 2006. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(800)378-3160 or
(202)863-2893, facsimile
(202)863-2898, or via e-mail at *http://www.bcpiweb.com.* It is also available on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov.* Synopsis 1. *Introduction.* We seek comment on the extent of any effect of communications towers on migratory birds and whether any such effect warrants regulations specifically designed to protect migratory birds. First, we request comment on the legal framework governing the Commission's obligations in this area, and in particular the threshold necessary to demonstrate an environmental problem that would authorize or require that the Commission take action. We then examine particular steps the Commission might take if there is probative evidence of a sufficient environmental effect to warrant Commission action. With regard to any newly constructed or modified communications tower that must be registered and meet lighting specifications under part 17 of the commission's rules, we tentatively conclude that medium intensity white strobe lights for nighttime conspicuity is to be considered the preferred system over red obstruction lighting systems to the maximum extent possible without compromising aircraft navigation safety. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on issues related to its implementation. We also seek comment on whether, based on the scientific or technical evidence before us concerning the impact that communications towers may have on migratory birds, we should adopt any additional requirements based on other characteristics of communications facilities, including the use of guy wires, tower height, the location of the tower, and the possibility of collocation. Finally, we request comment on whether to add an additional criterion for requiring an environmental assessment
(EA)to section 1.1307(a) of the commission's rules. 2. *Legal Framework.* The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)requires Federal agencies to analyze the impact of their proposed major Federal actions on the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)'s regulations define the “human environment” to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. 47 CFR 1508.14. The Endangered Species Act
(ESA)requires Federal agencies to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species * * * determined * * * to be critical. * * *” 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). Some, but not all, species of migratory birds are protected under the ESA. In adopting its environmental rules, the Commission in accordance with its public interest responsibilities under the Communications Act, previously has determined that construction of communications towers requires compliance with environmental responsibilities under NEPA and the ESA. Moreover, although under our present rules we do not routinely require environmental processing with respect to migratory birds, the Commission has considered the impact of individual proposed actions on migratory birds as part of its overall responsibility under NEPA. In order to fulfill its obligations under NEPA and the ESA, the Commission has promulgated rules to address such issues. We tentatively conclude that the obligation under NEPA to identify and take into account the environmental effects of actions that we undertake or authorize may provide a basis for the Commission to make the requisite public interest determination under the Communications Act to support the promulgation of regulations specifically for the protection of migratory birds, provided that there is probative evidence that communications towers are adversely affecting migratory birds. 3. We also seek comment on what constitutes a significant effect on the human environment under NEPA in the context of effects on migratory birds. For example, does the death of some number of individual birds, without more, constitute a significant environmental impact? Must the overall population of birds as a whole or of particular species be negatively impacted before any obligation under NEPA is triggered? And if so, what size of population, either in migratory birds as a whole or in a particular species, is sufficient to trigger any legal obligation by the Commission? Can the Commission rely upon anecdotal evidence of bird kills at individual towers or must it have broader studies before taking action specifically for the protection of migratory birds? Must the Commission consider whether collisions with communications towers interrupt avian movement, and thereby result in declines in species beyond the direct losses due to collisions? Also, what is the relevance, if any, of other causes of avian mortality, such as buildings, transmission lines, and vehicles? How do the answers to these questions affect the Commission's authority, or obligation, to take action in this matter? 4. Apart from any possible obligation under NEPA and ESA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA)provides that it is unlawful to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill * * * any migratory bird” unless permitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 16 U.S.C. 703, 704(a). Courts have rendered differing decisions regarding the scope of the MBTA's applicability to Federal agencies. The Commission, however, has indicated that “it is not clear” whether the MBTA applies to the Commission's actions. Petition by Forest Conservation Council, American Bird Conservancy and Friends of the Earth for National Environmental Policy Act Compliance, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 21 FCC Rcd 4462, 4469 n.42 (2006); County of Leelanau, Michigan, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 9 FCC Rcd 6901, 6903 para. 8 (1994). Nonetheless, some commenters argue that under the MBTA, a party may be liable for any unintentional, incidental death of a migratory bird, such as through a collision with a communications tower. Others contend that the MBTA has a narrower purpose to prohibit only intentional kills of migratory birds, such as by hunting or through a program to control migratory bird population. We seek comment on the nature and scope of the Commission's responsibilities, if any, under this statute. We also seek comment on whether the MBTA gives the Commission (or any agency other than the Department of the Interior) any authority to promulgate regulations to enforce its terms. If the Commission has statutory authority to issue regulations to enforce the MBTA, how could the Commission draft such regulations in a manner that does not impede our responsibility under the Communications Act to ensure the construction of communications towers that are necessary to meet the communications service needs of our nation? We seek comment on these questions. 5. *Possible Need for Commission Action.* In the *Notice of Inquiry* ( *NOI* ) in this proceeding, the Commission sought comments supported by evidence concerning whether communications towers have any significant impact on migratory birds. In the Matter of Effects of Communications Towers on Migratory Birds, *Notice of Inquiry,* WT Docket No. 03-187, 18 FCC Rcd 16938 (2003). In response, the Commission received a myriad of comments reflecting widely divergent views as to the degree to which communications towers cause migratory bird mortality. FWS estimates that the number of migratory birds killed by communications towers could range from 4 to 50 million per year. In light of these widely divergent views, we seek further comment supported by evidence regarding the number of migratory birds killed annually by communications towers. Where possible, commenters are encouraged to support their estimates with scientifically reviewed studies. 6. Understanding the scope of any problem involving communications towers and migratory birds is essential to devising meaningful solutions consistent with our responsibilities under the Communications Act and other Federal statutes. In particular, we seek comment on whether the evidence concerning the impact of communications towers on migratory bird mortality is sufficient to justify and/or authorize Commission action under the legal standards discussed in response to the questions posed above. Assuming sufficient evidence is developed regarding this issue, we may have a basis to take some of the suggested actions discussed below. 7. *Possible Commission Actions. Lighting requirements.* We tentatively conclude that for any newly constructed or modified communications tower that must meet lighting specifications under part 17 of the Commission's rules, medium intensity white strobe lights for nighttime conspicuity is to be considered the preferred system over red obstruction lighting systems to the maximum extent possible without compromising aircraft navigation safety. We request comment on this tentative conclusion, and on specific ways in which the Commission could implement this conclusion in our policies and rules. We also invite comments on the possible use and benefits of other lighting systems, such as red strobe or red blinking incandescent lights, and on other related issues. 8. Several commenting parties have submitted studies indicating that certain lighting requirements may reduce the likelihood of bird collisions with tower structures. In their joint comments filed in response to the *NOI,* the American Bird Conservancy, Forest Conservation Council, and Friends of the Earth argue that “the best science available indicates that particularly in poor visibility weather conditions at night, lights on towers (especially solid state red lights) disrupt a neo-tropical migratory bird's celestial navigation system and perhaps its magnetic navigation system.” FWS similarly asserts that lighting appears to be a “key attractant for night migrating songbirds, especially on nights with poor visibility,” although it adds that further research is needed on the extent to which lighting contributes to migratory bird collisions with communications towers. Subsequently, interim reports of studies being conducted at public safety towers in Michigan were entered into the record. Those interim reports indicate that comparable numbers of bird carcasses were found when only red strobe or only white strobe lights were used, irrespective of the towers' heights and the presence of guy wires. The interim reports also indicate more bird carcasses were found at towers using red steady lights with red strobe lights than at towers using only red strobe, white strobe, or red blinking incandescent lights. 9. Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, vests in the Commission the authority to require painting and/or lighting of antenna structures which may constitute a hazard to air navigation. 47 U.S.C. 303(q). Part 17 of the Commission's rules sets forth procedures for implementing this authority. 47 CFR Part 17. Specifically, if a proposed construction or modification of a communications tower would be more than 60.96 meters (200 feet) in height above ground level (AGL), or meet certain other conditions detailed in section 17.7 of our rules (such as proximity to an airport), our rules (as well as the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA)rules) require the entity proposing such construction or modification to notify the FAA. 47 CFR 17.7; 14 CFR 77.13. If the FAA determines, in accordance with its applicable Advisory Circular(s), that the construction or alteration is one for which lighting or marking is necessary for aircraft navigation safety, the FAA sends an acknowledgement to the antenna structure owner that contains a statement to that effect and information on how the structure should be marked and lighted. 14 CFR 77.19. This acknowledgment is the FAA's determination of “no hazard,” meaning that the FAA has determined that the structure will pose no hazard to aircraft so long as it is marked and/or lighted in accordance with the FAA's specifications. The antenna structure owner must register the structure with the Commission prior to construction by submitting FCC Form 854 together with the FAA's “no hazard” determination. 47 CFR 17.4(b). Unless the Commission specifies otherwise, the FAA's specifications for marking and/or lighting on the antenna structure are then made part of the owner's FCC antenna structure registration, and the owner is required to maintain the marking and/or lighting in accordance with those specifications. 47 CFR 17.23. The FAA's current standards pertaining to tower lighting specifications to promote aviation safety are set forth in Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K (“Obstruction Marking and Lighting”). The FAA's recommendations can vary depending on characteristics of the tower, terrain, and location, and may permit antenna structure owners to choose among different types of lighting systems, including red steady (red solid state), red strobe interspersed with red steady, or white lights. 10. In April 2004, in response to a request by the American Bird Conservancy to minimize mortality to migratory birds, the FAA issued an internal memorandum providing guidance on the FAA's issuance of lighting recommendations set forth in Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K. Specifically, as interim guidance, the FAA's Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management directs Regional Air Traffic Division Managers that use of medium intensity white strobe lights for nighttime conspicuity is to be considered the preferred system over red obstruction lighting systems when feasible and to the maximum extent possible in cases in which aviation safety would not be compromised. The memorandum references the *NOI* and notes that the Commission may later provide some guidance on what, if any, then existing standards regarding the effects of communications towers on migratory birds were in need of review and study. The memorandum also states that, from a safety perspective, the standards and guidance set forth in the existing Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 continue to be necessary to appropriately light obstacles and to avoid creating hazardous conditions for pilots. Finally, in accordance with that Advisory Circular, the memorandum points out that the use of white lights for nighttime conspicuity within three nautical miles of an airport or in populated urban areas is discouraged as a lighting recommendation. In their joint comments on a 2004 report prepared by the Commission's environmental consultant, Avatar Environmental, LLC (Avatar Report), the American Bird Conservancy, Forest Conservation Council, Humane Society, and Defenders of Wildlife urge the Commission to adopt the FAA's preference for white strobe lighting as set forth in the April 2004 memorandum. 11. We tentatively conclude that under the Commission's part 17 rules, consistent with the FAA's memorandum, the use of medium intensity white strobe lights for nighttime conspicuity is to be considered the preferred lighting system over red obstruction lighting systems to the maximum extent possible without compromising aircraft navigation safety. We base this tentative conclusion on the FAA's recommendation of such lighting where it will not compromise aircraft navigation safety, the evidence suggesting that white strobe lights may create less of a hazard to migratory birds, and the absence of record evidence that use of white strobe lighting would have an adverse impact on communications facilities deployment. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, including whether its implementation would result in reducing the incidence of migratory bird mortality associated with communications towers as well as any burdens such a requirement would impose on tower owners, or on the public, and whether alternatives may be available or preferable. We also seek comment on our statutory authority to implement this tentative conclusion. 12. In the event we adopt our tentative conclusion, we seek comment specifically on how best to implement this policy. For instance, should we revise section 17.23 of the Commission's rules ( *see* 47 CFR 17.23) to establish that, unless otherwise specified by the Commission, each new or altered registered antenna structure must use medium intensity white strobe lights for nighttime conspicuity if the FAA determines that the use of such lights would not impair the safety of air navigation and recommends their use? We note that section 17.23 of our rules currently references two FAA Advisory Circulars (AC 70/7460-1J, as revised in 1996, and AC 150/5345-43E, as revised in 1995). Given that one of these Advisory Circulars (AC 70/7460-1J) subsequently has been updated with a newer version (AC 70/7460-1K), we seek comment on how we should revise section 17.23. We further invite comment on whether any rule revisions we may adopt should be written in such a manner as to accommodate later changes in the FAA Advisory Circulars without a future change in our rules. We also ask for comment on whether, to the extent we determine to adopt additional lighting guidance in our rules, revisions to other provisions of part 17 or elsewhere in our rules are necessary. We encourage commenters to suggest specific language and discuss its benefits and drawbacks. 13. In addition, we invite commenters to consider the possible use and benefits of lighting systems other than red steady and medium intensity white strobe. We note that the FAA Advisory Circular pertaining to tower lighting does not currently permit the use of red strobe or red blinking incandescent lights without the use of red steady lights. FAA AC 70/7460-1K at 13-14. The American Bird Conservancy, however, has recently argued that recent and past research, including the preliminary results from the Michigan study, suggests that “the critical element in lighting towers and other structures is to use strobe lighting for night time conspicuity exclusively, and not to use red steady burning lights.” Thus, noting that the FAA does not recommend the use of white strobe lights under some circumstances, the American Bird Conservancy now asserts that either white or red strobe lighting is desirable. We seek comment on the significance of the existing research, and whether, given the FAA's existing Advisory Circular, we should modify our proposed rule to account for the possible use of red strobe lights or red blinking lights without red steady lights. If the final results of the Michigan study are consistent with the preliminary results and are borne out by a final report, would the results provide sufficient scientific basis on which to conclude that use of red strobe or red blinking lights might reduce bird mortality levels to the same or similar degree as white strobe lights? We also seek comment on whether there are other studies that have been designed to assess the different effects on avian mortality of these different lighting systems and whether there is a need for any further studies. If other studies exist, what are their results? Do they support the adoption of our tentative conclusion regarding the use of white strobe lights? Or, would the studies support giving tower registrants the option of using red strobe or red blinking incandescent lights as an alternative to white strobe lights, to the extent consistent with aircraft navigation safety and endorsed by the FAA? 14. We also seek comment regarding the economic, environmental, and any other costs of a requirement to use white strobe lights when compared with other lighting alternatives. In particular, what would be the specific economic impact on licensees and tower owners and constructors, including small businesses, of adopting such a requirement? What are the comparative costs and longevity of white strobe lighting systems versus the other lighting systems identified in this section? What other factors are relevant to assess the impact that requiring medium intensity white strobe lighting would have on licensees and towers owners and constructors? To the extent white strobe lighting would increase the cost of constructing or maintaining towers, we further seek comment on the effect this would have on communications service deployment, homeland security, and public safety. 15. We also note that section 1.1307(a)(8) provides that construction of antenna towers and/or supporting structures that are to be equipped with high intensity white lights, which are to be located in residential neighborhoods, is an action that may significantly affect the environment and thus requires the preparation of an EA by the applicant. 47 CFR 1.1307(a)(8). Further, the April 2004 FAA memorandum notes that in accordance with the Advisory Circular, the use of white lights for nighttime conspicuity within three nautical miles of an airport or in populated urban areas is discouraged as a lighting recommendation. We invite comment supported by evidence on whether medium intensity white strobe lighting would impose an environmental impact on neighboring residents or have other adverse consequences, and if so, how we should weigh these competing public interest considerations in determining whether to adopt any guidance relating to tower lighting. 16. Finally, we seek comment on what, if any, action we should take regarding the lighting of existing towers. We invite comment on both the benefits and costs of any such action. We note that this may also require modifying licenses pursuant to section 316 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 316), as well as the approval of the FAA and the re-issuance of any no-hazard determinations. Considering the costs and benefits and the need for the FAA to approve changes, if we were to take any action regarding existing towers, how should such a requirement be implemented? Should we require medium intensity white strobe lights when the red obstruction lights burn out and need to be replaced? Would such an approach be consistent with the FAA's applicable Advisory Circular? Should we seek a transition of all existing towers to medium intensity white strobe lights, to the extent permitted by the FAA, within a specific time frame, such as five years from the date of adoption of the tentative conclusion as a rule? We seek comment on these questions, as well as upon other alternatives to our proposed rule. 17. *Use of Guy Wires.* We next seek comment on whether we should adopt any requirements governing the use of guy wires because of the potential impact posed to migratory birds. In its September 2004 report, Avatar concluded that, based on the studies it analyzed, it appears that “[t]owers with guy wires are at higher risk [to birds] than self-supporting towers.” Avatar also stated, however, that at the time of its report there were “[n]o specific studies comparing avian collisions between guyed and self-supporting structures.” In their joint comments, American Bird Conservancy, Forest Conservation Council, the Humane Society, and Friends of the Earth assert that birds are killed not only by colliding with towers but also by flying into guy wires that support the towers. The interim reports on the Michigan towers, presented subsequent to the Avatar report, suggest that towers with guy wires had more avian mortality than towers of similar height with no guy wires. 18. In light of this record, we request comment on several questions relevant to whether these concerns are significant enough to justify the Commission's adoption of rules relating to the use of guy wires. In addressing these questions, commenters should also comment on whether, to the extent we adopt our tentative conclusion regarding tower lighting, there might still be a need to adopt requirements regarding the use of guy wires. 19. First, we seek comment on whether the scientific record supports limiting the use of guy wires. Are there additional scientific studies that illuminate the relationship between avian mortality and the use of guy wires? If so, how conclusive are those studies, and what do they show? To the extent it can be shown that guy wires do increase the number of migratory bird collisions with communications towers, is the increase in the number of collisions also related to the type of lighting used, such that the number of collisions would be mitigated if we were to adopt our tentative conclusion that medium intensity white strobe lights for nighttime conspicuity is to be considered the preferred lighting system over red obstruction lighting systems? 20. We also request information on engineering and economic factors relevant to the use of guy wires. Is there a height threshold above which guy wires are generally necessary, and if so, what is that height? Does the calculus vary depending on soil conditions or other factors? To what extent are towers utilizing guy wires necessary to the provision of various licensed services, and what economic factors may affect the decision whether to use guy wires? 21. We also request comment on any additional consequences that may result from regulation relating to guy wires. For instance, if we were to limit the use of guy wires, what would be the impact on tower construction and the deployment of communications services generally? Would tower constructors need to erect towers of the same height but with a larger physical footprint, a greater number of shorter towers to provide equivalent service, or some combination thereof? To what extent would either non-guyed tower designs or greater proliferation of towers result in creating additional adverse impact on environmental matters that do not pertain to migratory birds, such as historic properties, wetlands, or endangered species? 22. We ask commenters to address how we might balance these various scientific, engineering, economic, and other factors, in determining what, if any, standards should govern the use of guy wires. We encourage commenters to suggest specific tests for when the use of guy wires may be suspect, and to justify those tests based on objective evidence. Commenters should also address how any standards should be implemented. For example, if we adopt standards regarding the use of guy wires, should we mandate that all towers, or all towers meeting certain criteria, meet those standards without exception? Alternatively, should we permit towers with guy wires upon filing of an EA and issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact, or upon certification that no reasonable alternative ( *e.g.* , use of non-guyed towers or collocation) was available? We seek comment regarding both the benefits and the costs of these and alternative regimes. 23. We specifically seek comment on whether to adopt requirements relating to marking of guy wires. Avatar reported that one of the “most effective ways to reduce avian mortality is to mark [wires] to make them more visible,” and that the effectiveness of methods that mark overhead electric power lines and target certain species of birds is well documented. Therefore, Avatar concluded that wire marking “may increase guy wire visibility thereby reducing the collision risk for some birds,” and discussed several currently available devices such as bird flight diverters. Avatar also explained, however, that “from an engineering perspective,” wire marking is not “always a good solution” because devices “that physically enlarge the wire commonly act as wind-catching objects and may increase the risk of wire breaks due to line tension, vibration, and stress loads.” 24. We seek comment on the effectiveness of wire markings in mitigating migratory bird collisions with communications towers. In particular, we invite information about past or ongoing scientific studies into the effectiveness of wire markings on communications towers. To the extent studies have been conducted on other types of structures, how relevant are they to communications towers? Commenters who advocate a marking requirement should address which types of marking devices are most effective, and how they should be used. We also invite comment regarding the engineering feasibility and financial cost of marking requirements, for both existing and new towers. If the Commission were to adopt a wire marking requirement, how could we do so in a manner that imposes minimal burdens on license applicants and communications tower owners and constructors? 25. *Tower Height.* We seek comment on whether to adopt any requirements relating to the height of communications towers in order to minimize the impact of such towers on migratory birds. Avatar found that “all other things being equal, taller towers with lights tend to represent more of a hazard to birds than shorter, unlit, towers.” FWS's voluntary guidelines recommend that communications towers be shorter than 200 feet if possible to avoid, in most instances, the requirement that the towers have aviation safety lights. Conservation groups argue that the Commission should restrict the heights of communications towers because doing so would minimize the presence of two features that are most harmful to birds, lights and guy wires. 26. We request comment regarding the relevant costs and benefits of adopting any requirements relating to tower height. For example, would limitations on tower height hinder the deployment of certain types of services, including public safety communications? Would such requirements adversely affect the availability of service in certain geographic locations, such as rural areas? Would requirements governing tower height lead to a greater number of towers, and if so, to what extent would this impact historic properties, wetlands, endangered species, or other environmental values? We welcome specific information regarding any such disadvantages of rules relating to tower height, as well as the benefits. We also ask commenters to address whether, to the extent we adopt our tentative conclusion regarding tower lighting, there would be a need to adopt any requirements relating to tower height. 27. We also seek comment on how any requirements relating to tower height should be implemented. In particular, we ask commenters that advocate height regulations to consider what tower height should trigger any rules. Should we regulate towers over 200 feet in order to minimize the use of lights? Is there some other threshold above which towers are more likely to have a significant effect on migratory birds? Finally, we seek comment on what procedural requirements we should apply to towers that exceed any specified height threshold, such as a certification of need or requirement to file an EA. 28. *Tower Location.* We seek comment on whether towers located in certain areas might cause a sufficient environmental impact on migratory birds such that, when considered with other relevant factors, some Commission action might be justified. In the *NOI* , the Commission requested scientific research and other data “concerning the impact on migratory birds of communications towers located in or near specific habitats, such as wetlands.” The *NOI* asked whether “towers on ridges, mountains, or other high ground have a differential impact on migratory bird populations.” The NOI also sought comment on the impact on migratory birds of towers located in areas with a high incidence of fog, low clouds, or similar obscuration, or in proximity to coastlines and major bird corridors. In response to the NOI, some commenters presented arguments and rationales why communications towers should not be sited in certain locations such as migratory bird habitats or in migration corridors on ridgelines. Although Avatar noted some degree of confidence within the scientific community that the “greatest bird mortality tends to occur on nights with low visibility conditions, especially fog, low cloud ceiling, or other overcast conditions,” it reached no similar findings with regard to the effect that locating towers on ridges, or in wetlands, might have on avian mortality. In addition, Land Protection Partners discussed a “multi-modal research study in New Hampshire” that it claimed “revealed the effect of topography of the Appalachian Mountains on migratory birds, including neo-tropical migrants.” We seek information on whether there are additional scientific studies that have examined the effect that locating communications towers in different areas, with different weather conditions, might have on avian mortality and, if so, what if any requirements we should adopt on the basis of such studies. 29. *Collocation.* We request comment on whether the Commission should adopt additional requirements to promote collocation. We note that FWS, American Bird Conservancy, and several other commenters argue that the Commission should strongly encourage license applicants to collocate their antennas on existing structures to the extent possible. We seek comment and information relevant to whether we should adopt policies that would promote more extensive use of collocation. If we do adopt regulations to promote collocation, we seek comment on what form those regulations should take. Possibilities could include, for example, a requirement to certify that collocation opportunities are unavailable and/or describe collocation alternatives that the licensee explored. We ask commenters to discuss the benefits and costs of these and alternative forms of regulation, including burdens on small businesses and possible impacts on the delivery of public safety and homeland security services. We also ask commenters to assess the need for such regulation to the extent we adopt our tentative conclusion that the use of medium intensity white strobe lights for nighttime conspicuity is to be considered the preferred lighting system over red obstruction lighting systems. *30. Section 1.1307.* We seek comment as to whether to amend section 1.1307(a) of the commission's rules to routinely require environmental processing with respect to migratory birds. Section 1.1307(a) currently identifies eight different criteria that, if present, establish that a proposed facilities construction “may significantly affect the environment” and therefore requires preparation of an EA. 47 CFR 1.1307(a)(1) through (8). The American Bird Conservancy, Forest Conservation Council, Friends of the Earth, and the Humane Society argue that, considering the evidence of mass bird mortalities at communications towers, the Commission should also expressly require an EA for proposed facilities that would have potential effects on migratory birds. We note that the Commission's rules already provide for consideration of factors not identified in section 1.1307(a), including those that pertain to a facility's effect on migratory birds, to the extent the Commission independently determines that there may be a significant environmental effect in a particular case. 47 CFR 1.1307(c), (d). 31. We seek comment regarding the appropriate methodology for making such a determination, as well as the level of probative evidence necessary to support such a determination. We note, for example, that Avatar found in its 2004 report that there were no studies to date that “demonstrate[d] an unambiguous relationship between avian collisions with communication towers and population decline of migratory bird species.” Is the current state of scientific evidence insufficient to require routine assessment of such an effect? Or, to the contrary, is the evidence of specific incidents of bird collisions with towers, such as extrapolations that estimate the total number of these collisions, sufficient to support a required assessment for some or all towers? Are there other factors the Commission should consider in determining the proper treatment of the effect on migratory birds under the Commission's environmental rules? 32. We also seek comment, if we adopt an EA requirement for effects on migratory birds, on the types of towers to which such a requirement should apply. One possible approach might be to require an EA addressing this factor for all new tower construction. We seek comment as to whether the scientific evidence would support a general requirement of this sort, as well as the burdens it would impose on applicants. We also ask commenters to consider whether such a broadly applicable procedural requirement would reduce the incentive for companies to choose sites and designs that may be less likely to affect migratory birds. Another possibility could be to require an EA if a proposed construction “might affect migratory birds.” Commenters discussing this approach should address how such a broadly worded requirement might be administered, and how it could be enforced. 33. An alternative to these general approaches may be to require an EA only for proposed towers that exhibit certain characteristics that render them more likely to harm migratory birds. For example, as suggested in the discussion above, we might require an EA only for towers that use certain lighting systems, or that require guy wires, or that exceed a specified height. We seek comment as to whether the evidence supports such criteria, and if so where the thresholds should be set. Are there any additional factors that should be considered in triggering an EA requirement, such as the area of the country in which the tower would be located, the local topography, or prevailing weather conditions? We encourage commenters to set forth specific proposals and to address all relevant considerations, including the scientific support for particular criteria; the effect of any such EA requirement on the deployment of wireless services, on homeland security, and on public safety; and the Commission's ability to administer any particular proposal if adopted. Commenters should also address both the effectiveness and the burdens of various approaches, including the impacts on small businesses. 34. *Other Possible Actions.* Finally, we seek comment on whether there are other possible substantive or procedural measures the Commission could take to minimize migratory bird collisions that are not discussed above. For any such possible measure, we request any available information and scientific research to support the effectiveness of such a measure at minimizing migratory bird collisions. We also request comment on the best way to implement such a measure so as to eliminate the imposition of any unnecessary costs on affected entities, including small businesses. Procedural Matters Ex Parte—Permit But Disclose Proceeding 35. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. *See Generally,* 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the Commission's Rules. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 36. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( *see* 5 U.S.C. 603), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this document. The IRFA is set forth in section III below. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to the NPRM as set forth below in subsection D, and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 37. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. *See* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Comment Period and Procedures 38. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using:
(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or
(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,* 63 FR 24121 (1998). 39. Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. 40. ECFS filers. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. 41. Paper Filers. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 42. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554. 43. Availability of documents. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page: *http://www.fcc.gov.* Copies of comments and reply comments are also available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160, or via e-mail at the following e-mail address: *http:// www.bcpiweb.com.* 44. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 45. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)requires Federal agencies to establish procedures that will enable them to analyze any potential environmental impact of actions that they undertake or authorize. *See* 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The Endangered Species Act
(ESA)prohibits the taking of any endangered or threatened species by any person unless authorized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B). The Commission has implemented regulations to comply with NEPA and ESA in part 1, subpart I of its rules. 47 CFR 1.1301 *et seq.* In response to the Commission's August 2003 Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding (In the Matter of Effects of Communications Towers on Migratory Birds, *Notice of Inquiry,* WT Docket No. 03-187, 18 FCC Rcd 16938 (2003)), FWS and several other parties filed comments in which they argued that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA)(16 U.S.C. 701) would prohibit the unintentional and incidental take of even one migratory bird that died by colliding with a communications tower. These commenters also asserted that there have been several reports of mass migratory bird mortalities at communications towers. FWS estimates that the number of migratory birds killed each year due to collisions with communications towers could range from 4 to 50 million. 46. In the NPRM, we seek comment on whether to amend the Commission's rules to reduce the impact of communications towers on migratory birds in accordance with these Federal statutes and in light of the concerns expressed in the *NOI* record. We tentatively conclude that any newly constructed or modified communications tower, which under part 17 of the Commission's rules must be registered with the Commission and comply with lighting specifications, should be required to use medium intensity white strobe lights rather than red obstruction lighting for nighttime conspicuity so long as the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)determines that the use of such lights on that particular communications tower does not impair aviation safety. We also seek comment on whether we should adopt regulations with regard to:
(1)The use of guy wires;
(2)height of communications towers;
(3)the location of towers; and
(4)collocation of antennas on existing structures. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should amend commission rule 1.1307 (47 CFR 1.307) to include potential impact on migratory birds as a criterion that requires the filing of an Environmental Assessment (EA). Legal Basis 47. We tentatively conclude that we have authority under sections 1, 4(i), 303(q) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 301, 303(q), 303(r), and under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* , to adopt the proposals set forth in the NPRM. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply 48. 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 rules 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.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A small business concern is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. 632 (1996). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 5 U.S.C. 601(4). 49. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. See SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at page 40 (July 2002). A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference (2002). The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” 5 U.S.C. 601(5). Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page 272, table 415. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. The changes and additions to the commission's rules adopted in the NPRM are of general applicability to all FCC licensed entities of any size that use a communications tower. Accordingly, this NPRM provides a general analysis of the impact of the proposals on small businesses rather than a service by service analysis. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 50. The NPRM solicits comment on one tentative conclusion and on five other potential areas of modification to the Commission's regulations regarding the siting and construction of communications towers so as to reduce the incidence of migratory bird collisions. The NPRM seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that, under the commission's part 17 rules, the use of medium intensity white strobe lights for nighttime conspicuity is to be considered the preferred lighting system over red obstruction lighting systems to the maximum extent possible without compromising aircraft navigation safety. The NPRM also requests comment on whether we should impose regulations relating to the use of guy wires on communications towers, the height of communications towers, the location of communications towers, and collocation of new antennas on existing structures. Finally, the NPRM seeks comment as to whether the Commission should amend section 1.1307(a) of our rules to expand the circumstances under which an EA is required. Depending on the rules that are adopted, it is possible that compliance may involve new recordkeeping or reporting requirements. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered 51. 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):
(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and
(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 52. The NPRM seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that, under the Commission's part 17 rules, the use of medium intensity white strobe lights for nighttime conspicuity is to be considered the preferred lighting system over red obstruction lighting systems to the maximum extent possible without compromising aircraft navigation safety. We seek comment on the effect that such a requirement, or alternative rules, might have on small entities. The NPRM also requests comment on whether it should impose regulations relating to the use of guy wires on communications towers, the height of communications towers, the location of communications towers, or collocation of new antennas on existing structures. For each of these areas, we seek comment about the burdens that regulation would impose on small entities and how the Commission could impose such regulations while minimizing the burdens on small entities. Are there any alternatives the Commission could implement that could achieve the Commission's goals while at the same time minimizing the burdens on small entities? We will continue to examine alternatives in the future with the objectives of eliminating unnecessary regulations and minimizing any significant economic impact on small entities. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 53. None. Ordering Clauses 54. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 303(q), 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(q), 303(r), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* , this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted. 55. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before January 22, 2007 and reply comments on or before February 20, 2007. 56. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19742 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 48 CFR Part 719 RIN 0412-AA58 Mentor-Protégé Program AGENCY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). ACTION: Proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is proposing to amend its acquisition regulations to formally encourage USAID prime contractors to assist small disadvantaged firms certified by the Small Business Administration under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, other small disadvantaged business, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority institutions of higher learning, and women-owned small business in enhancing their capabilities to perform contracts and subcontracts for USAID and other Federal agencies. The program seeks to provide a Mentor-Protégé Program that assists qualified small business to receive developmental assistance from USAID prime contractors in order to increase the base of small business eligible to perform USAID contracts and subcontracts. The program also seeks to foster long-term business relationships between USAID prime contractors and small business entities and minority institutions of higher learning and to increase the overall number of small business entities and minority institutions that receive USAID grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and subcontract awards. DATES: Written comments on the proposed rulemaking must be received on or before December 8, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by the title of the proposed action, Regulatory Information Number (RIN), your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and e-mail address in the text of the message. Accepted methods of submission include the following: Federal eRulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments; facsimile: 202-216-3056; mail: addressed to, Rockfeler P. Herisse, Ph.D. U.S. Agency for International Development, Attn. Mentor-Protégé Rulemaking, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20523-7800, and E-mail: *rherisse@usaid.gov* . All comments will be made available for public review without change, including any personal information provided, from three
(3)days after receipt to finalization of action *http://www.usaid.gov/policy/regulations/index.html.* With respect to proposed reporting requirements and the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB—Rm. 10202, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington DC 20503 Rm. 10202, or to Beverly Johnson, Office of Administrative Services, Information and Records Division, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20523 (202)-712-1365 or by e-mail to *bjohnson@usaid.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy A. Scrivner, Mentor-Protégé Rulemaking, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, U.S. Agency for International Development, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20523,
(202)712-4983 or by e-mail to *tscrivner@usaid.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Section By Section Analysis III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act E. Review Under Executive Order 12612 F. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 I. Background On December 8, 1995, the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) commissioned a thorough assessment of existing Mentor-Protégé programs and the feasibility of such a program for USAID. The assessment concluded that opportunities exist in such programs to actually encourage meaningful and successful business development between Mentors and Protégés. Mentor-Protégé arrangements represent opportunities for creating access for small and disadvantaged business to USAID contracts and awards. Both OSDBU and the Office of Acquisition and Assistance
(OAA)believe that Mentor-Protégé programs will afford small and disadvantaged business opportunities to develop their capacity and competencies. Review and analysis of existing Mentor-Protégé programs in the private and public sector conclude that they are effective against the problems related to small business and minority sub-contracting. This program is similar to those established by other federal agencies such as the Department of State, Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. An assessment of the best practices in Mentor-Protégé programs identified certain clear benefits for all parties involved. A successful Program can enable USAID to receive a lower price offer from less expensive Mentor-Protégé teams. USAID acknowledges that a structured Mentor-Protégé Program provides an opportunity for dual benefits where small and disadvantaged business are developed to become prime contractors and technically capable sub-contractors. More importantly, the Program provides a degree of confidence to Program Officers that the Mentor firm stands behind the work of the Protégé firm. Therefore, risks associated with the performance of the small and disadvantaged business are mitigated. II. Section-by-Section Analysis This rulemaking proposes to add a new Subpart 273 and amend Part 719 of the AIDAR to provide a Mentor-Protégé Program that assists qualified small business to receive developmental assistance from USAID prime contractors in order to increase the base of small business eligible to perform on USAID grants, contracts and subcontracts. Proposed sections 719.273-2 and 719.273-4 define which types of entities are eligible to participate as Protégé in the Program. Those entities would include Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority institutions of higher learning in addition to 8(a) firms, other small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business. Proposed section 719.273-3 provides the USAID's Mentor-Protégé Program policy. Costs incurred by a Mentor to provide developmental assistance are not chargeable to the contract but can be used to offset subcontract goals to the extent that they are incurred during the performance of a contract identified in the Mentor-Protégé Agreement, and have not been credited or reimbursed by the Government. This is an exception to the general rule that USAID will not reimburse Mentors for providing developmental assistance to Protégés, which is set out in proposed section 719.273-3(b). Proposed section 719.273-4 outlines requirements for Mentor eligibility. Proposed section 719.273-3 states the incentives for Mentoring firms. Proposed section 719.273-4 outlines Protégé eligibility requirements. Proposed section 719.273-5 provides that selection of a Protégé is solely at the discretion of the proposed Mentor. Section 719.273-6 describes the process by which USAID contractors may seek to participate in this program as Mentors. Proposed section 719.273-7 provides the minimum requirements of a proposed Mentor-Protégé agreement. Proposed section 719.273-8 describes forms of developmental assistance. Proposed section 719.273-7 describes the review process leading to USAID's approval of a proposed Mentor-Protégé agreement. Proposed section 719.273-10 describes the various reports that this program requires. Proposed section 719.273-11 provides for the inclusion of a provision discussing the Mentor-Protégé program in all solicitations exceeding $550,000 ($1,000,000 for construction) that offer subcontracting opportunities. Proposed section 752.219-XX provides for the inclusion of a provision discussing the establishment of the Mentor-Protégé Program. III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this proposed rule was subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements:
(1)Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;
(2)Write regulations to minimize litigation; and
(3)Provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1)Clearly specifies the subject law's preemptive effect, if any;
(2)Clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation;
(3)Provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4)Specifies the retroactive effect, if any;
(5)Adequately defines key terms; and
(6)Addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. USAID has completed the required review and determined that these proposed regulations meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, that requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that must be proposed for public comment and that is likely to have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The entities to which this rulemaking would apply are large business and small business firms that receive a form of incentive for assuming the role of Mentor to 8(a) firms, other small disadvantaged business, small women-owned business, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and other minority institutions of higher education. It is the expectation that at such time as this rule is finalized, those Protégé entities would directly benefit from the forms of Mentoring described in this proposed rule. USAID believes there would not be an adverse economic impact on small contractors or subcontractors, but requests comment from the public on other possible impacts this rule may have on small entities. Comments will be used as a factual basis upon which USAID would certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule would require USAID contractors serving as Mentors to submit an application (see proposed Sec. 719.273-7) and annual progress reports to the USAID Mentor-Protégé Program Manager at USAID Headquarters (see proposed Sec. 719.273-10). The information in the reports is necessary to determine the value of the developmental assistance and if the schedules and developmental assistance levels contained in Mentor-Protégé Agreements are being met. Performance under the Agreements is the basis for providing proper recognition to Mentor firms. The proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* USAID estimates the number of respondent Mentor firms to be 30 and the number of hours required for recordkeeping and preparation of the reports to be approximately 12 hours per respondent annually. The total annual burden hour from compliance is expected to be 360 hours (30 × 12 hours per year). The collection of information contained in this proposed rule is considered the least burdensome for meeting the requirements and objectives of the USAID Mentor-Protégé Program. USAID invites public comments concerning:
(1)The need for the reporting requirement;
(2)the accuracy of USAID's estimate of the reporting burden;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents. Send comments regarding this proposed collection of information to the contact persons named in the address section of this notice. E. Review Under Executive Order 12612 Executive Order 12612, (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987), requires that regulations, rules, legislation, and any other policy actions be reviewed for any substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or in the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. If there are sufficient substantial direct effects, then the Executive Order requires the preparation of a federalism assessment to be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing a policy action. This proposed rule merely describes the USAID Mentor-Protégé Program. States would not be directly subject to this rule, since they are not among the class of entities described as Mentors or Protégés. USAID has determined that this proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the institutional interests or traditional functions of the States. F. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of costs and benefits of any rule imposing a federal mandate with costs to State, local or tribal governments, or to the private sector of $100 million or more. This proposed rulemaking would only affect private sector entities, and the impact is less than $100 million. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 719 Government procurement. For the reasons set out in the preamble, USAID proposes to amend 48 CFR chapter 7 as set forth below: PART 719—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 719 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7254, 40 U.S.C. 486(c), 42 U.S.C. 2201. 2. A new subpart 719.273 is added as follows: Subpart 719.273—The U.S. Agency for International Development Mentor-Protégé Program 719.273-1 Purpose. 719.273-2 Definitions. 719.273-3 Incentives for Prime Contractor Participation. 719.273-4 Eligibility of Mentor and Protégé Firms. 719.273-5 Selection of Protégé Firms. 719.273-6 Application Process. 719.273-7 OSDBU Review of Application. 719.273-8 Developmental Assistance. 719.273-9 Obligations Under the Mentor-Protégé Program. 719.273-10 Internal Controls. 719.273-11 Solicitation Provision and Contract Clause. Subpart 719.273—The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mentor-Protégé Program 719.273-1 Purpose. The USAID Mentor-Protégé Program is designed to motivate and encourage firms and institutions of higher education to provide business development assistance to small business and institutions of higher of higher education in the United States that either historically or currently have ethnic minority student enrollments of more than 25 percent. These institutions are commonly known as Minority Institutions or referred to in this document as Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs). The term “small business” includes small business, small disadvantaged business certified by the Small Business Administration under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, women-owned small business, HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business. The Mentor-Protégé Program is also designed to improve the performance of USAID contractors and subcontractors by providing developmental assistance to Protégé entities, fostering the establishment of long-term business relationships between small business and prime contractors and between institutions of higher education with MSIs, and increasing the overall number of small business and MSIs that receive USAID contract and subcontract awards. For purposes of the Small Business Act, a Protégé firm is not considered an affiliate of a Mentor firm solely because the Protégé firm is receiving developmental assistance from said Mentor firm under the Program. A firm's status as a Protégé under a USAID contract shall not have an effect on the firm's eligibility to seek other prime contracts or subcontracts. Mentors may have multiple Protégés. However, USAID reserves the right to limit the total number of Protégés participating under the Mentor-Protégé Program. 719.273-2 Definitions.
(a)Throughout, the term “small business” includes all categories of small firms on whose behalf OSDBU is chartered to advocate, including small business, small and disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned small business and small business located in HUBZones, as those terms are defined in FAR 2.101.
(b)The term “MSIs” applies to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Serving Institutions
(HSIs)and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). Here the term is used interchangeably with the term Minority Institution as defined in FAR 2.101.
(c)A “Mentor” is a prime contractor that elects to promote and develop small business subcontractors by providing developmental assistance designed to enhance the business success of the Protégé. An institution of higher education may also enter into Mentor-Protégé Agreement as a Mentor with a small business or a MSI Protégé.
(d)“Program” refers to the USAID Mentor-Protégé Program as described in this Chapter.
(e)“Protégé” means a small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business or service-disabled veteran-owned small business that is the recipient of developmental assistance pursuant to a Mentor-Protégé Agreement. A MSI can also enter into a Mentor-Protégé Arrangement with a business entity. 719.273-3 Incentives for Prime Contractor Participation.
(a)Under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(E), USAID is authorized to provide appropriate incentives to encourage subcontracting opportunities for small business consistent with the efficient and economical performance of the contract. This authority is limited to negotiated procurements. FAR 19.202-1 provides additional guidance.
(b)Costs incurred by a Mentor to provide developmental assistance as described below in 719.273-8 can be used to offset established sub-contracting requirements, to the extent that those costs are incurred during the performance of a contract identified in the Mentor-Protégé Agreement, and have not been previously credited or reimbursed by the Government.
(c)In addition to paragraph
(b)of this section, contracting officers may give Mentors evaluation credit under FAR 15.101-1 considerations for subcontracts awarded pursuant to their Mentor-Protégé Agreements and their subcontracting plans. Therefore:
(1)Contracting officers may evaluate subcontracting plans containing Mentor-Protégé arrangements more favorably than subcontracting plans without Mentor-Protégé Agreements.
(2)Contracting officers may assess the prime contractor's compliance with the subcontracting plans submitted in previous contracts as a factor in evaluating past performance under FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v) and determining contractor responsibility 19.705-5(a)(1).
(d)*OSDBU Mentoring Award* . A non-monetary award will be presented annually to the Mentoring firm providing the most effective developmental support of a Protégé. The Mentor-Protégé Program Manager will recommend an award winner to the Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU).
(e)*OSDBU Mentor-Protégé Annual Conference* . At the conclusion of each year in the Mentor-Protégé Program, Mentor firms will be invited to brief contracting officers, program leaders, office directors and other guests on Program progress. 719.273-4 Eligibility of Mentor and Protégé Firms. Eligible business entities approved as Mentors may enter into agreements (hereafter referred to as “Mentor-Protégé Agreement” or “Agreement” and explained in 719.273-6) with eligible Protégés. Mentors provide appropriate developmental assistance to enhance the capabilities of Protégés to perform as contractors and/or subcontractors. Eligible small business entities capable of providing developmental assistance may be approved as Mentors. Protégés may participate in the Program in pursuit of a prime contract or as subcontractors under the Mentor's prime contract with USAID.
(a)*Eligibility* . A Mentor:
(1)May be either a large or small business entity;
(2)Must be eligible for award of Government contracts;
(3)Must be able to provide developmental assistance that will enhance the ability of Protégés to perform as prime contractors or subcontractors; and
(4)Will be encouraged to enter into arrangements with entities with which it has established business relationships.
(b)*Eligibility* .
(1)A Protégé:
(i)Must be a small business, HUBZone, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, veteran-owned small business, small disadvantaged veteran-owned small business (as those terms are defined in FAR 2.101) or a Minority Serving Institution
(MSI)(as defined in 719.273-2);
(ii)Must be small as determined by NAICS code for the services or supplies to be provided by the Protégé to the Mentor; and
(iii)Eligible for award of government contracts.
(2)A Protégé firm may self-certify to a Mentor firm that it meets the requirements set forth in paragraph
(b)of this section. Mentors may rely in good faith on written representations by potential Protégés that they meet the specified eligibility requirements. Small disadvantaged business status eligibility and documentation requirements are determined according to FAR 19.304. HUBZone status eligibility and documentation requirements are determined according to FAR 19.1303.
(c)Protégés may have multiple Mentors. Protégés participating in Mentor-Protégé programs in addition to USAID's Program should maintain a system for preparing separate reports of Mentoring activity so that results of the USAID Program can be reported separately from any other agency program. 719.273-5 Selection of Protégé Firms.
(a)Mentor firms will be solely responsible for selecting Protégé firms. Mentors are encouraged to select from a broad base of MSIs and small business including small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, and HUBZone firms whose core competencies support USAID's mission.
(b)Mentors may have multiple Protégés. However, USAID reserves the right to limit the total number of Protégés participating under each Mentor firm for the Mentor-Protégé Program.
(c)The selection of Protégé firms by Mentor firms may not be protested, except that any protest regarding the size or eligibility status of an entity selected by a Mentor shall be handled in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)and the Small Business Administration regulations. 719.273-6 Application Process. Entities interested in becoming a Mentor firm must apply in writing to the USAID Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) by submitting form AID XXXX (OMB Approval number xxxx__). The application shall contain the Mentor-Protégé Agreement and shall be evaluated for approval. Evaluations will consider the nature and extent of technical and managerial support as well as any proposed financial assistance in the form of equity investment, loans, joint-venture, and traditional subcontracting support. The Mentor-Protégé Agreement must contain:
(a)Names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses (if available) of Mentor and Protégé firm(s) and a point of contact for both Mentor and Protégé;
(b)A description of the developmental assistance that will be provided by the Mentor to the Protégé, including a description of the work or product contracted for (if any), a schedule for providing assistance, and criteria for evaluation of the Protégé's developmental success.
(c)A listing of the number and types of subcontracts to be awarded to the Protégé;
(d)Duration of the Agreement, including rights and responsibilities of both parties (Mentor and Protégé);
(e)Termination procedures, including procedures for the parties' voluntary withdrawal from the Program. The Agreement shall require the Mentor or the Protégé to notify the other firm in writing at least 30 days in advance of its intent to voluntarily terminate the Agreement;
(f)Procedures requiring the parties to notify OSDBU immediately upon receipt of termination notice from the other party;
(g)A plan for accomplishing the work or product contracted for should the Agreement be terminated; and
(h)Other terms and conditions, as appropriate. 719.273-7 OSDBU Review of Application.
(a)OSDBU will review the information to establish the Mentor and Protégé eligibility and to ensure that the information that is in Section 719.273-6 is included. If the application relates to a specific contract, then OSDBU will consult with the responsible contracting officer on the adequacy of the proposed Agreement, as appropriate. OSDBU will complete its review no later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the application or after consultation with the contracting officer, whichever is later. Application for and enrollment into the Program are free and open to the public.
(b)After OSDBU completes its review and provides written approval, the Mentor may execute the Agreement and implement the developmental assistance as provided under the Agreement. OSDBU will provide a copy of the Mentor-Protégé Agreement to the USAID contracting officer for any USAID contracts affected by the Agreement.
(c)The Agreement defines the relationship between the Mentor and Protégé firms only. The Agreement itself does not create any privity of contract or contractual relationship between the Mentor and USAID nor the Protégé and USAID.
(1)If the Mentor responding to a solicitation wishes to receive credit for an approved program arrangement, then the contracting officer must add the approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement to the subcontracting plan of any affected contract. OSDBU will notify the contracting officer of any changes to the Agreement, particularly if either party terminates the Agreement or OSDBU rescinds its approval of the Agreement per section 719.273-10.
(2)If the application is disapproved, the Mentor may provide additional information for reconsideration. OSDBU will complete review of any supplemental material no later than 30 days after its receipt. Upon finding deficiencies that USAID considers correctable, OSDBU will notify the Mentor and Protégé and request correction of deficiencies to be provided within 15 days. 719.273-8 Developmental Assistance. The forms of developmental assistance a Mentor can provide to a Protégé include and are not limited to the following:
(a)Guidance relating to—
(1)Financial management;
(2)Organizational management;
(3)Overall business management/planning;
(4)Business development; and
(5)Technical assistance.
(b)Loans;
(c)Rent-free use of facilities and/or equipment;
(d)Property;
(e)Temporary assignment of personnel to a Protégé for training; and
(f)Any other types of permissible, mutually beneficial assistance. 719.273-9 Obligations Under the Mentor-Protégé Program.
(a)A Mentor or Protégé may voluntarily withdraw from the Program. However, in no event shall such withdrawal impact the contractual requirements under any prime contract.
(b)Mentor and Protégé entities shall submit to the USAID Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) annual reports on progress under the Mentor-Protégé Agreement. Mentors required to submit Small Business Subcontracting Plan reports (in accordance with FAR 52.219-9) may submit the Mentor-Protégé reports as part of their subcontracting reporting obligations. USAID will evaluate annual reports by considering the following:
(1)Specific actions taken by the Mentor during the evaluation period to increase the participation of their Protégé(s) as suppliers to the Federal Government and to commercial entities;
(2)Specific actions taken by the Mentor during the evaluation period to develop technical and administrative expertise of a Protégé as defined in the Agreement;
(3)The extent to which the Protégé has met the developmental objectives in the Agreement;
(4)The extent to which the Mentor's participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program impacted the Protégé'(s) ability to receive contract(s) and subcontract(s) from private firms and Federal agencies other than USAID; and, if deemed necessary.
(5)Input from the Protégé on the nature of the developmental assistance provided by the Mentor.
(c)OSDBU will submit annual reports to the relevant contracting officer regarding participating prime contractor(s)' performance in the Program.
(d)Mentor and Protégé firms shall submit an evaluation to OSDBU at the conclusion of the mutually agreed upon Program period, the conclusion of the contract, or the voluntary withdrawal by either party from the Program, whichever comes first. 719.273-10 Internal Controls.
(a)OSDBU will oversee the Program and will work in concert with the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager and relevant contracting officers to achieve Program objectives. OSDBU will establish internal controls as checks and balances applicable to the Program. These controls will include:
(1)Reviewing and evaluating Mentor applications for validity of the provided information;
(2)Reviewing annual progress reports submitted by Mentors and Protégés on Protégé development to measure Protégé progress against the plan submitted in the approved Agreement; and
(3)Reviewing and evaluating financial reports and invoices submitted by the Mentor to verify that USAID is not charged by the Mentor for providing developmental assistance to the Protégé.
(b)USAID may rescind approval of an existing Mentor-Protégé Agreement if it determines that such action is in USAID's best interest. The rescission shall be in writing and sent to the Mentor and Protégé after approval by the Director of OSDBU. Rescission of an Agreement does not change the terms of any subcontract between the Mentor and the Protégé. 719.273-11 Solicitation Provision and Contract Clause.
(a)The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at AIDAR 752.219-70 in all unrestricted solicitations exceeding $550,000 ($1,000,000 for construction) that offer subcontracting opportunities.
(b)The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at AIDAR 752.219-71 in all contracts where the prime contractor has signed a Mentor-Protégé Agreement with USAID. PART 752—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. The authority citation for part 752 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 566673; 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 435. 4. Add section 752.219-270 to read as follows: 752.219-270 USAID Mentor-Protégé Program (XXXX 2007) As prescribed in AIDAR 719.273-11(a), insert the following provision: USAID Mentor-Protégé Program
(a)Large and small business are encouraged to participate in the USAID Mentor-Protégé Program (the “Program”). Mentor firms provide eligible small business Protégés with developmental assistance to enhance their business capabilities and ability to obtain Federal contracts.
(b)Mentor firms are large prime contractors or eligible small business capable of providing developmental assistance. Protégé firms can be either small business, as defined in 13 CFR Parts 121, 124, and 126 or MSIs.
(c)Developmental assistance is technical, managerial, financial, and other mutually beneficial assistance that aids Protégés. The costs for developmental assistance are not chargeable to the contract. Firms interested in participating in the Program are encouraged to contact the USAID OSDBU (202-712-1500) for more information. (End of provision) 5. Add section 752.219-271 to read as follows: 752.219-71 Mentor Requirements and Evaluation (XXXX 2007) As prescribed in AIDAR 719.273-11(b), insert the following clause: Mentor Requirements and Evaluation
(a)Mentor and Protégé firms shall submit an evaluation of the overall experience in the Program to OSDBU at the conclusion of the mutually agreed upon Program period, the conclusion of the contract, or the voluntary withdrawal by either party from the Program, whichever occurs first. At the conclusion of each year in the Mentor-Protégé Program, the Mentor and Protégé will formally brief the USAID Mentor-Protégé Program Manager regarding Program accomplishments under their Mentor-Protégé Agreement.
(b)Mentor or Protégé shall notify OSDBU in writing, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the effective date of the firm's withdrawal from the Program. (End of clause) Dated: November 9, 2006. Marilyn Marton, Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU). [FR Doc. E6-19707 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Part 604 [Docket No. FTA-2005-22657] RIN 2132-AA85 Charter Service Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee AGENCY: Federal Transmit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of meeting location and time of the meeting. SUMMARY: This notice lists the location and time of the next Charter Bus Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (CBNRAC) meeting. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Martineau, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Transmit Administration, 202-366-1936 ( *elizabeth.martineau@dot.gov* ). Her mailing address at the Federal Transmit Administration at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9316, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting Location The Residence Inn Marriott, 550 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. Meeting Time December 6th, 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. December 7th, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m. Issued this 16th day of November, 2006, in Washington, DC. James S. Simpson, Administrator. [FR Doc. 06-9364 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
CFR
register
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Purposes§ 3501
- Application of chapter§ 152
- Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts§ 4332
- Interagency cooperation§ 1536
- Taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds unlawful§ 703
- Powers and duties of Commission§ 303
- Modification by Commission of station licenses or construction permits; burden of proof§ 316
- Initial regulatory flexibility analysis§ 603
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Definitions§ 601
- Prohibited acts§ 1538
- Game and wild birds; preservation§ 701
- Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created§ 151
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Rules and regulations§ 7254
- General duties of Commission§ 2201
- Additional powers§ 637
- Exercise of functions§ 2381
28 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 26 CFR 1
- 37 CFR 201
- 47 CFR 1.1200
- 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2)
- 47 CFR 1.1206(b)
- 47 CFR 1508.14
- 47 CFR 17
- 47 CFR 17.7
- 47 CFR 17.4(b)
- 47 CFR 17.23
- 47 CFR 1.1307(a)(8)
- 47 CFR 1.1307(a)(1)
- 47 CFR 1.1307(c)
- 47 CFR 1.1202
- Pub. L. 104-13
- Pub. L. 107-198
- 47 CFR 1.415
- 47 CFR 1.1301
- 47 CFR 1.307
- 5 USC 632
- 48 CFR 719
- Pub. L. 96-354
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 USC 486(c)
- Pub. L. 87-195
- 75 Stat. 445
- 49 CFR 604
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite26 CFR 1
Cite37 CFR 201
Cites 55 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources