Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 22035

1The affiliated organizations include: American

Train Dispatchers Department; International

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood

of Locomotive Engineers; Brotherhood of

Maintenance of Way Employees; Brotherhood of

Railroad Signalmen; Hotel Employees and

Restaurant Employees International Union;

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron

Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers;

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers;

International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers;

and Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 219

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Evaluation

Preference for Small Disadvantaged

Business Concerns

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense

Procurement is proposing to amend the

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement to state that the evaluation

preference for small disadvantaged

business concerns shall not be used in

acquisitions for long distance

telecommunications services.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

should be submitted in writing to the

address shown below on or before July

3, 1995, to be considered in the

formulation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to: Defense

Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn:

Ms. Amy Williams,

PDUSD(A&T)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139,

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC

20301–3062. Telefax number (703) 602–

0350. Please cite DFARS Case 95–D008

in all correspondence related to this

issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Amy Williams, (703) 602–0131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Subpart 219.70 of the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) provides policy and

procedures for use of an evaluation

preference for offers from small

disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns

in competitive acquisitions. SDB

concerns receiving the evaluation

preference in acquisitions for services

must agree that at least 50 percent of the

cost of personnel for contract

performance will be spent for

employees of the SDB concern.

This DFARS rule proposes to make

the SDB evaluation preference

inapplicable to acquisitions for long

distance telecommunications services,

as it is often necessary for large long

distance carriers to provide more than

50 percent of the labor under contracts

for long distance telecommunications

services.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The proposed change to DFARS Part

219 may have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities within the meaning of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,

et seq., because the rule eliminates the

evaluation preference for small

disadvantaged business concerns in

acquisitions for long distance

telecommunications services. An Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

has been prepared and may be obtained

from the address stated herein. A copy

of the IRFA has been submitted to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. Comments are

invited. Comments from small entities

concerning the affected DFARS subpart

will be considered in accordance with

Section 610 of the Act. Such comments

must be submitted separately and cite

DFARS Case 95–D008 in

correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because the rule does not

impose any information collection

requirements which require the

approval of the Office of Management

and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et

seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 219

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

Therefore, 48 CFR Part 219 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Part 219 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR

Chapter 1.

PART 219—SMALL BUSINESS AND

SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS

CONCERNS

2. Section 219.7001(b) is revised to

read as follows:

219.7001 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) Do not use the evaluation

preference in acquisitions which—

(1) Use small purchase procedures;

(2) Are set-aside for small

disadvantaged businesses;

(3) Are set-aside for small businesses;

(4) Are for commissary or exchange

resale; or

(5) Are for long distance

telecommunications services.

[FR Doc. 95–11020 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

49 CFR Part 1121

[Ex Parte No. 400 (Sub-No. 4)]

New Procedures in Rail Exemption

Revocation Proceedings

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission is requesting

comments on a proposal by the Railway

Labor Executives’ Association and its

affiliated labor organizations to establish

procedural rules to govern the filing and

processing of petitions to revoke

exemptions.

DATES: Written comments are due on

June 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of comments, referring to Ex

Parte No. 400 (Sub-No. 4), to: Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Branch,

Interstate Commerce Commission, 1201

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20423.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 927–5610. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By

petition filed December 30, 1994, the

Railway Labor Executives’ Association

and its affiliated labor organizations

(RLEA) 1 ask that we establish formal

procedural rules to govern petitions to

revoke exemptions brought under 49

U.S.C. 10505(d) or 49 CFR 1152.25(e).

RLEA proposes a set of rules which, it

asserts, provides the parties and the

Commission with a specific procedure

for filing and processing petitions to

revoke exemptions. These rules would

require, among other things, that a

petition to revoke be filed to initiate a

proceeding, containing a concise, plain

statement of the grounds for revocation,

as well as the relief sought. The rules

would further require that respondent(s)

reply within 15 days, setting forth,

among other things, a concise, plain

statement of the reasons why the

petition should not be granted.

Discovery would commence with the
22036 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules

2Petitioner’s brief would be due 30 days after the

close of discovery, or if there is no discovery, 15

days after the filing of the reply. Respondent’s brief

would be due 30 days after service of petitioner’s

brief or within 15 days if there is no discovery.

Petitioner would be permitted to file a reply brief

(not to exceed 10 pages) within 10 days after service

of the opposition brief.

filing of the reply or upon expiration of

15 days after the filing of the petition to

revoke (whichever is shorter), and

would close within 105 days. Parties

could proceed with depositions only by

filing a petition with the Commission.

All discovery and scheduling matters

would be handled by an Administrative

Law Judge. RLEA’s proposed regulations

also allow for the filing of briefs by

petitioner and respondent and set a

staggered schedule.2 Finally, the

proposed procedural schedule calls for

a Commission decision to be issued

within 45 days from the filing of the

reply brief, if there has been discovery,

or within 30 days, if there has been no

discovery.

We are now seeking public comments

on this proposal by RLEA to amend 49

CFR 1121.4(i) to provide formal

procedural rules for the filing and

processing of a revocation petition.

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or conservation of energy

resources.

Because this is not a notice of

proposed rulemaking within the

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), we need not

make, at this time, the small business

impact examination required by that

Act. Nevertheless, we welcome any

comments regarding the small entities

considerations embodied in that Act. If

we decide to issue a notice of proposed

rulemaking, we will conduct an

appropriate Regulatory Flexibility Act

examination at that time.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1121

Rail exemption procedures.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10326, 10505 and 5

U.S.C. 553.

Decided: April 27, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman Morgan,

Vice Chairman Owen, and Commissioners

Simmons and McDonald.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11011 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P