63026 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 1995 / Notices

ACTION: Proposed additions to

Procurement List.

SUMMARY: The Committee has received

proposals to add to the Procurement List

services to be furnished by nonprofit

agencies employing persons who are

blind or have other severe disabilities.

COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR

BEFORE: January 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase

From People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403,

1735 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia 22202–3461.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly Milkman (703) 603–7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice is published pursuant to 41

U.S.C. 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its

purpose is to provide interested persons

an opportunity to submit comments on

the possible impact of the proposed

actions.

If the Committee approves the

proposed additions, all entities of the

Federal Government (except as

otherwise indicated) will be required to

procure the services listed below from

nonprofit agencies employing persons

who are blind or have other severe

disabilities.

I certify that the following action will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The major factors considered for this

certification were:

1. The action will not result in any

additional reporting, recordkeeping or

other compliance requirements for small

entities other than the small

organizations that will furnish the

services to the Government.

2. The action does not appear to have

a severe economic impact on current

contractors for the services.

3. The action will result in

authorizing small entities to furnish the

services to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory

alternatives which would accomplish

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in

connection with the services proposed

for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are

invited. Commenters should identify the

statement(s) underlying the certification

on which they are providing additional

information.

The following services have been

proposed for addition to Procurement

List for production by the nonprofit

agencies listed:

Administrative Services, Social Security

Administration, Great Lakes Program

Service Center, Chicago, Illinois,

NPA: Lester & Rosalie ANIXTER

CENTER, Chicago, Illinois

Grounds Maintenance, Base Command,

Building 2750, Burger King, Building

6006, Edwards Air Force Base,

California, NPA: Desert Haven

Enterprises, Inc., Lancaster,

California.

Beverly L. Milkman,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 95–29958 Filed 12–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–33–P

Procurement List; Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled.

ACTION: Addition to the Procurement

List.

SUMMARY: This action adds to the

Procurement List a service to be

furnished by nonprofit agencies

employing persons who are blind or

have other severe disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase

From People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403,

1735 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia 22202–3461.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly Milkman (703) 603–7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 29, 1995, the Committee for

Purchase From People Who Are Blind

or Severely Disabled published notice

(60 F.R. 50558) of proposed addition to

the Procurement List.

Comments were received from the

current contractor for this service before

the notice of proposed rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register. Some

of these comments were transmitted to

the Committee by a Member of

Congress. The Committee initially was

asked to add janitorial services at a

group of buildings to the Procurement

List, but the request was revised to

include only the Ariel Rios Building to

minimize the impact on the current

contractor.

Despite the limitation, the contractor

continued to claim that the proposed

addition would have a severe impact on

the company. The contractor claimed

that the percentage of contract revenues

it would lose on its award for the

remaining buildings exceeds a ‘‘rule of

thumb’’ percentage beyond which the

Committee will consider impact to be

severe. The contractor also indicated

that it has been a continuous supplier of

building maintenance at various

Government sites and is thus more

dependent on such sales to the

Government. The contractor claimed

that the remaining buildings in the

group would soon be closing for

extensive renovations, so the limitation

of the Procurement List addition to the

one building would not lessen the

impact on the contractor.

The Committee’s criteria on

permissible impact on a current

contractor for a Procurement List

addition, at 41 CFR 51–2.4(a)(4), look at

the impact on the total sales of a

company, not the percentage of revenue

for a particular contract. The Committee

has no ‘‘rule of thumb’’ for total sales

percentage, as impact determinations

are made on the facts of each situation.

In this situation, the percentage of sales

which the contractor will lose is well

below the percentage cited as the ‘‘rule

of thumb’’ level and, even when

consideration is given to the contractor’s

dependence on Government sales, does

not reach a level which would be

considered severe adverse impact. In

addition, the contracting activity has

informed the Committee that the other

two buildings in the group will not

close for renovation until April and

December 1997, respectively, later than

the contractor contended, which should

give the contractor ample time to

develop other business to replace

business temporarily lost to the

renovations.

The contractor also claimed that

addition of the services at the Ariel Rios

Building does not meet the legislative

intent of the Committee’s statute, the

Javits-Wagner-O’Day (JWOD) Act, 41

U.S.C. 46–48c, in regard to the labor

operations to be performed. According

to the contractor, the JWOD Act requires

that 75 percent of the total labor

operations to be performed in providing

these services must be done by people

with a severe disability.

The contractor has misconstrued the

labor requirement in the JWOD Act. In

order to qualify for participation in the

JWOD Program, a nonprofit agency

employing people with severe

disabilities must employ such people

for not less than 75 percent of the

overall total of direct labor performed

on commodities and services which the

nonprofit agency provides, whether or

not these commodities or services are

provided to the Government under the

JWOD Program. 41 U.S.C. 48b(4)(C).

There is no statutory requirement for a

specific percentage of direct labor on a

JWOD contract, although it is

anticipated that the designated

nonprofit agency performing the

services at the Ariel Rios Building will

reach a 75 percent disabled direct labor

level on that contract. Addition of these

services to the Procurement List will

thus create substantial work for people

with disabilities, and is not a ‘‘front’’ for
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 1995 / Notices 63027

awarding a contract to people without

disabilities as the contractor contended.

The statutory definition of direct labor,

at 41 U.S.C. 48b(5), excludes activities

such as supervision, administration,

inspection and shipping, which are

considered indirect labor by the

Committee and not counted in assessing

direct labor ratios.

The contractor also contended that

the Committee has abused its authority

to the disadvantage of small businesses

and the competitive process of

Government contracting. While the

JWOD Program’s share of Government

contracts has grown in recent years, it

is still only a very small part of total

Government contracting, and is dwarfed

by the share of Government contracts

which goes to small businesses. The

contractor’s claim that the JWOD

Program has permitted abuses of the

competitive contracting process is based

on the contractor’s just-discussed

misunderstanding of the JWOD Act’s

direct labor requirement, and is thus

without foundation.

The contractor also attempted, in its

comments relayed by a Member of

Congress, to characterize the JWOD Act

as requiring only that a Government

agency give ‘‘priority consideration’’ to

purchasing JWOD commodities and

services, with the mandatory nature of

such procurements coming only from a

Committee regulation. However, the

mandate comes directly from the JWOD

Act, at 41 U.S.C. 48, which requires

Government agencies intending to

procure commodities or services on the

Procurement List to buy them from a

JWOD nonprofit agency, unless they are

not available or are commodities

available from Federal Prison Industries.

After consideration of the material

presented to it concerning capability of

qualified nonprofit agencies to provide

the service, fair market price, and

impact of the addition on the current or

most recent contractors, the Committee

has determined that the service listed

below is a suitable for procurement by

the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C.

46–48c and 41 CFR 51–2.4.

I certify that the following action will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The major factors considered for this

certification were:

1. The action will not result in any

additional reporting, recordkeeping or

other compliance requirements for small

entities other than the small

organizations that will furnish the

service to the Government.

2. The action will not have a severe

economic impact on current contractors

for the service.

3. The action will result in

authorizing small entities to furnish the

service to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory

alternatives which would accomplish

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in

connection with the service proposed

for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service is

hereby added to the Procurement List:

Janitorial/Custodial, Ariel Rios Federal

Building, 12th & Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC.

This action does not affect current

contracts awarded prior to the effective

date of this addition or options

exercised under those contracts.

Beverly L. Milkman,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 95–29957 Filed 12–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EG96–20–000, et al.]

China U.S. Power Partners I, Ltd., et

al.; Electric Rate and Corporate

Regulation Filings

December 1, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. China U.S. Power Partners I, Ltd.

[Docket No. EG96–20–000]

On November 20, 1995, China U.S.

Power Partners I, Ltd. (‘‘CUPPI’’), with

its principal office at Church Street,

Clarendon House, Hamilton HM11,

Bermuda filed with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission an application

for determination of exempt wholesale

generator status pursuant to Part 365 of

the Commission’s Regulations.

CUPPI is a limited liability company

organized under the laws of Bermuda.

CUPPI will be engaged indirectly

through an Affiliate as defined in

Section 2(a)(11)(B) of the Public Utility

Holding Company Act of 1935, and

exclusively in owning, or both owning

and operating a proposed coal-fired

electric generating facility consisting of

two electric generating units, each with

a net rating of approximately 300,000

kilowatts to be located in the People’s

Republic of China and to engage in

project development activities with

respect thereto.

Comment date: December 21, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice. The

Commission will limit its consideration

of comments to those that concern the

adequacy or accuracy of the application.

2. Cenergy, Inc.

[Docket No. ER94–1402–002]

Take notice that on November 9,

1995, Cenergy, Inc. (Cenergy) tendered

for filing a letter supporting Cenergy’s

position in the above-referenced docket.

Comment date: December 14, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

3. Mock Resources, Inc.

[Docket No. ER95–300–004]

Take notice that on November 15,

1995, Mock Resources, Inc. tendered for

filing an amendment to its October 30,

1995 quarterly report filed in the abovereference docket.

4. Commonwealth Edison Company

[Docket No. ER95–901–000]

Take notice that on November 13,

1995, Commonwealth Edison Company

tendered for filing an amendment in the

above-referenced docket.

Comment date: December 15, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

5. Consolidated Edison Company of

New York, Inc.

[Docket No. ER95–1694–000]

Take notice that on October 20, 1995,

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc. tendered for filing an

amendment in the above-referenced

docket.

Comment date: December 15, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

6. Greenwich Energy Partners, L.P.

[Docket No. ER96–116–000]

Take notice that on November 16,

1995, Greenwich Energy Partners, L.P.

tendered for filing an amendment in the

above-referenced docket.

Comment date: December 14, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

7. Texas Utilities Electric Company

[Docket No. ER96–267–000]

Take notice that on November 2,

1995, Texas Utilities Electric Company

(TU) tendered for filing three executed

transmission service agreements (TSA’s)

with LG&E Power Marketing, Inc.,

Enron Power Marketing, Inc., and

Electric Clearinghouse, Inc. for certain

Economy Energy Transmission Service

under TU Electric’s Tariff for

Transmission Service To, From and

Over Certain HVDC Interconnections.

TU Electric requests effective dates for

the TSA’s that will permit them to

become effective on or before the service

commencement date under each of the

three TSA’s. Accordingly, TU Electric