2250 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order 

[DA 06–2577] released December 22, 

2006. The complete text of the Order is 

available for 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 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 complete 

text may also be downloaded at: http:// 

www.fcc.gov. By the Order, the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (WCB) grants a 

motion requesting an additional 

extension of the date for filing reply 

comments on an intercarrier 

compensation plan called the ‘‘Missoula 

Plan.’’ The Missoula Plan was filed on 

July 24, 2006 by the National 

Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners’ Task Force on 

Intercarrier Compensation. On July 25, 

2006, the WCB released a Public Notice 

requesting that comments on the 

Missoula Plan be filed by September 25, 

2006, and reply comments by November 

9, 2006. 71 FR 45510, August 9, 2006. 

On August 29, 2006, WCB released an 

order granting extensions of the 

comment and reply comment filing 

dates to October 25, 2006 and December 

11, 2006. 71 FR 54008, September 13, 

2006. Over 110 parties filed initial 

comments on or before October 25, 

2006. On November 17, 2006, NARUC 

filed a motion requesting a further 

extension of the reply comment date to 

January 11, 2007, which was granted. 71 

FR 70709, December 6, 2006. On 

December 20, 2006, the Indiana Utility 

Regulatory Commission, the Maine 

Public Utilities Commission, the 

Montana Public Service Commission, 

the Nebraska Public Service 

Commission, the Vermont Department 

of Public Service, the Vermont Public 

Service Board, and the Wyoming Public 

Service Commission (the ‘‘Early 

Adopter Regulatory Commissions’’) 

filed a Motion for Extension of Time 

requesting an additional extension for 

all reply comments to February 1, 2007. 

The WCB determined that providing 

additional time to file reply comments 

will facilitate the development of a more 

accurate and complete record in this 

proceeding. Although it is the policy of 

the Commission that extensions of time 

shall not be routinely granted, the WCB 

determined that given the extensive 

nature of the record and the potential 

effects of the Missoula Plan, good cause 

exists to provide parties an additional 

extension of time, from January 11, 2007 

to February 1, 2007, for filing reply 

comments in this proceeding. 

Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to §§ 4(i), 4(j), and 5(c) of the 

Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

154(j), 155(c), and §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 

1.46 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

0.91, 0.291, 1.46, the pleading cycle 

established in this matter shall be 

modified as follows: 

Reply Comments Due: February 1, 

2007. 

All other filing procedures remain 

unchanged from those previously 

established in this proceeding. 

It is further ordered that the Motion of 

the Early Adopter Regulatory 

Commissions for Extension of Time is 

granted, as set forth herein. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Thomas J. Navin, 

Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E7–621 Filed 1–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

48 CFR Part 5234 

[No. USN–2006–0069] 

Department of the Navy Acquisition 

Regulations: Continuous Process 

Improvements (CPI) 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Deputy for Acquisition 

Management, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy (Research, 

Development and Acquisition) is 

issuing this advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comments 

that can be used to assist the 

Department of the Navy (DON) in 

drafting a proposed Navy Marine Corps 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

contract clause or statement of work 

requirements that will incentivize 

contractors to pursue and implement 

CPI on DON major defense contracts. In 

particular, the primary focus will be to 

incentivize proactive business process 

improvement activities that identify 

increased efficiencies, cost avoidance, 

and cost savings, and provide the 

greatest motivation for contractors to 

share related savings with the DON to 

the maximum extent practicable. 

DATES: Comment Date: Interested parties 

should submit comments on or before 

March 19, 2007, to be considered in the 

formulation of any proposed rule. 

The DON invites interested parties 

from both the private and public sector 

to provide comments on the effective 

use of incentives to encourage and 

reward contractor CPI initiatives aimed 

toward exceeding key objectives or 

performance parameters on DON major 

defense contracts. Comments are 

especially welcomed on the specific 

issues discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice. See, 

in particular, the questions posed under 

‘‘Solicitation of Public Comment.’’

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number and title, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, docket 

number, and title for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. Please cite ‘‘Continuous 

Process Improvements’’ in all 

correspondence related to this issue. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Department of the Navy, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Research, Development & Acquisition), 

Deputy for Acquisition Management, 

Attn: Mr. Clarence Belton, Policy, 1000 

Navy Pentagon, Room BF992, 

Washington, DC 20350–1000, telephone 

number 703–693–4006. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Companies that have implemented 

CPI methods and tools have 

significantly reduced waste and nonvalue added activities, improved cycle 

time, produced repeatable processes, 

reduced variation, and improved 

customer satisfaction. 

This process has led to improved 

products and services at a reduced cost. 

The Navy and Marine Corps, as 

customers of goods and services, should 

receive a fair share of the reduced costs. 

A contract clause should benefit 

companies that are aggressive in 

implementing CPI tools and methods 

with quantifiable improved output. The 

purpose of this ANPR is to solicit 

comments and suggestions on contract 

requirements aimed at motivating and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2251 

rewarding contractors for implementing 

CPI. After consideration of the 

comments submitted in writing, the 

DON may publish a draft proposed rule 

for additional public comments. 

B. Solicitation of Public Comment 

The DON seeks to better understand 

how to incentivize contractors to 

incorporate best business practices 

related to CPI and how such contract 

requirements are used commercially 

and when their use would be in the best 

interest of the Government. The DON 

has developed questions to obtain this 

information as part of this ANPR. 

Accordingly, the DON invites the 

public to provide comments addressing 

the appropriate use of specific contract 

provisions to incentivize contractors to 

aggressively pursue and initiate CPI that 

identify increased efficiencies, cost 

avoidance, and cost savings. Comments 

are also requested on the use of 

solicitation provisions, source selection 

criteria, and performance incentives that 

will provide contractors with the 

greatest motivation to share related 

savings with the Government to the 

maximum extent practicable. The DON 

especially welcomes feedback to the 

following questions: 

1. What contractual mechanisms can 

the Government use to incentivize 

contractors to implement CPI? 

2. What are some of the contract 

provisions currently being used in 

supplier and other subcontracts to 

incentivize CPI? 

3. How can the Government motivate 

contractors who implement CPI to share 

in related savings to the maximum 

extent practicable? 

4. Are cost reimbursement or flexibly 

priced contracts more suitable for 

providing incentives for contractors to 

implement CPI that identify increased 

efficiencies, cost avoidance, and cost 

savings, and for providing the highest 

motivation to share in those related 

savings to the maximum extent 

practicable? Why or why not? What 

about firm fixed-priced contracts? 

Dated: January 11, 2007. 

M.A. Harvison, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–612 Filed 1–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL