Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules 60781 

Also, we seek comment on possible 

methods to improve information sharing 

among licensees and the level of burden 

increase such information sharing might 

entail. We also note that we have 

discussed possible changes to the 

likelihood of needing environmental 

evaluations as a result of our proposed 

actions in Section E of this IRFA, infra. 

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

69. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, 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.’’

70. In addition to our discussion of 

compliance burdens, supra, we have 

noted in this FNPRM that radiated 

power limit increases may impact 

licensee’s administrative burden in 

making filings required for proper 

evaluation of transmission sites in 

regard to environmental compliance. 

We have sought comment on this issue. 

We note that wireless systems, 

including broadband PCS systems, are 

subject to environmental evaluation 

with respect to human exposure of RF 

radiation for non-building mounted 

antennas when the antenna height 

above ground level is less than 10 

meters and the total power of all 

channels is greater than 2000 watts ERP 

and for building mounted antennas 

when the total power from all channels 

is greater than 2000 watts ERP. 

Otherwise, these systems are 

categorically excluded from such 

environmental evaluation. Although we 

are not proposing any change to RF 

exposure standards, we seek comment 

as to whether adoption of higher 

radiated power limits would increase 

the number of facilities requiring full 

environmental evaluation rather than 

being categorically excluded, and 

whether adoption of higher radiated 

power limits would outweigh any 

possible increased administrative 

burden. 

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

71. None. 

D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

72. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed 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). 

73. Pursuant to applicable procedures 

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before December 19, 

2005, and reply comments on or before 

January 17, 2006. Comments and reply 

comments should be filed in both WT 

Docket Nos. 03–103 and 05–42. All 

relevant and timely comments will be 

considered by the Commission before 

final action is taken in this proceeding. 

74. Regardless of whether parties 

choose to file electronically or by paper, 

they should also send one copy of any 

documents filed, either by paper or by 

e-mail, to each of the following: (1) Best 

Copy & Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, facsimile (202) 

488–5563, or e-mail at http:// 

www.fcc@bcpiweb.com; and (2) Wilbert 

E. Nixon, Jr., Mobility Division, 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554, or e-mail at 

Wilbert.Nixon@fcc.gov. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

75. It is further ordered that the 

commission’s Consumer Information 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

shall send a copy of this FNPRM, 

including the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Certification and the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 22 

Communications common carriers, 

Radio. 

47 CFR Part 24 

Personal communications services, 

Radio. 

47 CFR Part 27 

Wireless communications services. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–20928 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 05–2517; MB Docket No. 05–273, RM–

11273] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Charleston, TN 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document sets forth a 

proposal to amend the FM Table of 

Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 73.202(b). 

The Audio Division requests comment 

on a petition filed by Claire Giannasi, 

proposing the allotment of Channel 

250A at Charleston, Tennessee as that 

community’s first local service. The 

proposed coordinates for Channel 250A 

at Charleston, Tennessee, are 35–19–11 

NL and 84–37–00 WL. The allotment 

will require a site restriction of 13.4 km 

(8.3 miles) east of Charleston. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before November 18, 2005, and reply 

comments on or before December 5, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve 

counsel for the petitioner as follows: 

Kris R. Kendrick, Esq., Post Office Box 

82032, Athens, Georgia 30608–2032. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202) 

418–7072. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

05–273, adopted September 23, 2005, 

and released September 27, 2005. The 

full text of this Commission document 

is available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center 

(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. The complete text of 

this decision may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378–3160, 

or via the company’s Web site, http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com. This document does 

not contain proposed information 

60782 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed 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). 

The Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte 

contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Tennessee, is 

amended by adding Charleston, Channel 

250A. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 05–20844 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 2, 4, and 52 

[FAR Case 2005–007] 

RIN 9000–AK33 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Central Contractor Registration –

Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) 

Validation 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) are proposing to amend the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

include the process of validating a 

Central Contractor Registration (CCR) 

registrant’s taxpayer identification 

number (TIN) with the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) to improve data accuracy 

in the Federal procurement system. 

Additionally, the proposed amendment 

removes outdated language requiring 

modifications of contracts prior to 

December 31, 2003, regarding CCR. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the FAR 

Secretariat on or before December 19, 

2005 to be considered in the 

formulation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FAR case 2005–007 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.acqnet.gov/far/ProposedRules/ 

proposed.htm. Click on the FAR case 

number to submit comments. 

• E-mail: farcase.2005–007@gsa.gov. 

Include FAR case 2005–007 in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, 

ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, 

DC 20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR case 2005–007 in all 

correspondence related to this case. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.acqnet.gov/far/ProposedRules/ 

proposed.htm, including any personal 

and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

FAR Secretariat at (202) 501–4755 for 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules. For clarification 

of content, contact Mr. Michael O. 

Jackson, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 

208–4949. Please cite FAR case 2005–

007. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Vendor registration in the CCR as a 

pre-requisite for being awarded a 

contract has been required in the 

Department of Defense since 1998, for 

Civilian Agencies since 2003. Since 

CCR’s inception, validation of 

registrants’ TINs with the IRS has been 

contemplated in order to improve data 

accuracy throughout the Federal 

procurement system. This capability, 

although actively pursued, was never 

implemented as the Internal Revenue 

Code (I.R.C.) restricts disclosure of TINs 

without the taxpayer’s consent, which 

due to technology at the time, would 

have been costly and inefficient to 

pursue. However, in its Fall 2004 

‘‘Report to Senate Committee on 

Governmental Affairs Permanent 

Subcommittee on Investigations,’’ the 

Federal Contractor Tax Compliance 

Task Force (which included the Office 

of Management and Budget, the 

Department of Treasury, the Department 

of Defense, the General Services 

Administration, the Department of 

Justice, and the IRS) recommended that 

‘‘ . . . a consent-based TIN validation 

under I.R.C. § 6103 should be 

instituted.’’ The capability for a near 

real-time/real-time, web-based solution 

integrating the CCR with an IRS 

validation is now able to be pursued 

due to advancements in technology. The 

FAR was recommended to be updated to 

specifically identify the validation of 

the TINs as a part of CCR registration. 

Additionally, Subpart 4.11, Central 

Contractor Registration, contains 

language that was included when this 

subpart was implemented in the FAR in 

2003. This outdated language required 

modifications of contracts by December 

31, 2003, to include CCR registration 

requirements. As this date is past, the 

case removes the associated language. 

The rule is proposing to amend the 

FAR by—

1. Modifying FAR 2.101 to indicate 

that the validation requirement for 

‘‘registered in CCR’’ includes TIN 

matching. 

2. Removing FAR 4.1103(a)(3)(i) thru 

4.1103(a)(3)(ii) and a part of 4.1104 to