10826 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

at the time that the SIP was submitted

and a target APO that is at least 25

percent above the areawide AVO.

Employers with more than 100

employees are required to submit

compliance plans to the State that

convincingly demonstrate that the plan

will increase the APO per vehicle in

commuting trips between home and the

worksite during peak travel periods to a

level not less than 25 percent above the

areawide AVO for all such trips.

Employer notification was scheduled to

begin in January 1995. Registration

forms, APO surveys, and compliance or

maintenance plans will be required

from employers 30, 90, and 240 days,

respectively, following receipt of the

registration packet. Mailing of renewal

notices will begin in January 1997.

Substantial penalties that will provide

an adequate incentive for employers to

comply and are no less than the

expected cost of compliance are

included in the regulation. USEPA is,

therefore, proposing to approve this

submittal. Public comments are

solicited on the requested SIP revision

and on USEPA’s proposed rulemaking

action. Comments received by March

30, 1995 will be considered in the

development of USEPA’s final rule.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993, memoran

dum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

Implementation Plan. Each request for

revision to any State Implementation

Plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal state relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Act

forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–4789 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–27, RM–8582]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Yazoo

City, Mississippi

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by

Mississippi College, licensee of Station

WHJT(FM), Channel 228A, Clinton,

Mississippi, proposing the deletion of

vacant Channel 229A at Yazoo City,

Mississippi. Any party wishing to

express an interest in Channel 229A

Yazoo City, Mississippi, should file

their expression of interest by the initial

comment deadline specified herein.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before April 17, 1995, and reply

comments on or before May 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

In addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Shaun A. Maher, Smithwick

& Belediuk, P.C., 1990 M Street, NW,

Suite 510, Washington, D.C. 20036

(Counsel for petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

95–27, adopted February 9, 1995, and

released February 23, 1995. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140,

Washington, D.C. 20037.

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 broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–4846 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Logistics Agency

48 CFR Part 5416

DLA Acquisition Regulation; Type of

Contracts

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency

proposes to add coverage by adding a

new part to 48 CFR Chapter 54, the

Defense Logistics Acquisition

Regulation (DLAR) Part 5416. The

proposed coverage affects regulations on

the use of solicitation provisions and

contract clauses for Economic Price

Adjustments (EPA). Comments are

hereby requested on the proposed rule.

The proposed DLAR coverage expands
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10827

the use of EPA based on established

prices to encompass industry-wide and

geographically based market price

references, expands the use of EPA

based on indexes to encompass indexes

for commercial products or services

which are identical or similar to the end

products to be provided under the

contract, and authorizes the

development and use, subject to

established agency review and approval

procedures, of clauses using EPA

references described above. The

proposed coverage is being published

because it is expected to have an effect

beyond the internal operating

procedures of DLA and to provide an

opportunity for public participation and

comment.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

DLAR rule must be submitted in writing

to the address shown below on or before

May 1, 1995, to be considered in the

formulation of the final rules.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to Defense

Logistics Agency, Directorate of

Procurement, Contract Policy Team

(AQPLL), Ms. Melody Reardon,

Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia

22304–6100 FAX: (703) 274–0310.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melody Reardon, Defense Logistics

Agency, AQPLL, (703) 274–6431.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The Defense Fuel Supply Center, a

major contracting activity of DLA, has

historically utilized a method of price

adjustment in the bulk petroleum area

using price indexes for the same or

similar end products (most recently,

actual monthly sales price averages

published by the Department of Energy

in the Petroleum Marketing Monthly)

and using market price assessments for

commercial products published in

industry trade journals. For the past few

years, these EPA clauses have either

been approved by the Director, Defense

Procurement, or authorized under

individual deviations granted by the

Executive Director, Procurement, DLA.

Deviations were requested because the

types of EPA references used in these

clause are not specifically recognized

under the three general types of EPA

references at FAR 16.203. Currently,

FAR 16.203–1(a) and its related

coverage and clauses, recognize EPA

references based on established market

or catalog prices of the individual

contractor only. The proposed DLAR

coverage will expand this to include

industry-wide and geographically

specific market price assessments and

authorize the development and use of

clauses on that basis. FAR 16.203–1(c)

and its related coverage recognize EPA

references based only on indexes for

labor or materials. The proposed DLAR

coverage would expand this to include

indexes for the same or similar

commercial end products and authorize

the development and use of clauses on

that basis.

None of the three EPA types currently

encompassed by the FAR are

appropriate for many of the competitive

procurements of commercial products

undertaken by DFSC and other DLA

contracting offices. The use of an EPA

reference based on an individual

contractor’s established price or cost of

materials is impractical for

procurements under which indefinite

quantity contracts will be issued.

Unique EPA references for each offeror

engender relative price variations

during the delivery period, making it

impossible to determine the most

favorable offer at time of award. This

creates a significant price risk for the

Government and undermines the

competitive process. Use of an index

based on raw material cost ignores the

effect of market conditions which affect

producer margins. This creates a price

risk for the Government in periods

where margins are contracting and for

the contractors in periods where the

margins are expanding. Such

fluctuations can be significant in

petroleum markets. Given the need for

a common EPA reference, a reference

that more closely follows market prices

for the end item reduces price risk for

both the Government and the contractor.

Such references are also more in

conformance with commercial practice.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The proposed change is not expected

to have 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. The

primary user of the new DLAR coverage

will be the Defense Fuel Supply Center,

which has been utilizing these types of

EPA references since the early 1980s.

The proposed rule will therefore not

represent a change for small entities

doing business with the DFSC.

Flexibility is also limited by the need to

establish a common EPA reference for

competing offerors, as discussed above.

Given this need, establishing the

reference based on the same or similar

end products as being provided under

the contract, as opposed to labor or

material costs, minimizes the price risk

experienced by small entities. An initial

regulatory flexibility analysis has not

been performed. Comments are invited

from small businesses and other

interested parties. Comments will also

be considered concerning the effect of

the proposed rule on small entities in

accordance with section 612 of the Act.

Such comments must be submitted

separately and cite this case in

correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed rules do not impose any

reporting or record keeping

requirements which require the

approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501,

et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 5416

Government procurement.

Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR

Chapter 54, as proposed in the Federal

Register (59 FR 21954, April 28, 1994)

be amended by adding part 5416 to read

as follows:

PART 5416—TYPES OF CONTRACTS

Subpart 5416.2—Fixed Price Contracts

5416.203 Fixed-Price Contracts with

Economic Price Adjustment

5416.203–1 Description

5416.203–3 Limitations

5416.203–4 Contract Clauses

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 10 U.S.C. 2202, 48

CFR Part 1, subpart 1.3 and 48 CFR Part 201,

subpart 201.3.

Subpart 5416.2—Fixed Price Contracts

5416.203 Fixed Price Contracts with

Economic Price Adjustment

5416.203–1 Description.

(a)(S–90) Adjustments based on

established prices. Established prices

may reflect industry-wide and/or

geographically based market price

fluctuations for commodity groups,

specific supplies or services, or contract

end items.

(c)(S–90) Adjustments based on cost

indexes of labor or materials. These

price adjustments may also be based on

increases or decreases in indexes for

commodity groups specific supplies or

services, or contract end items.

5416.203–3 Limitations.

(S–90) A fixed price contract with

economic price adjustment may also be

used to provide for price adjustments

authorized in this section.

5416.203–4 Contract clauses.

(S–90) When the contracting officer

determines that an existing EPA clause

is not appropriate, the contracting

officer may develop and use another

EPA clause in accordance with

5416.203–1 (a)(S–90) or (c)(S–90).

Established prices in such clauses need

not be verifiable using the criteria in 48

CFR (FAR) 15.804–3. Established prices
10828 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

and cost indexes need not reflect

changes in the costs or established

prices of a specific contractor. The

established price or cost index may be

derived from sales prices in the

marketplace, quotes, or assessments as

reported or made available in a

consistent manner in a publication,

electronic database, or other form, by an

independent trade association,

Governmental body, or other third party

independent of the contractor. More

than one established price or cost index

may be combined in a formula for

economic price adjustment purposes in

the absence of an appropriate single

price or cost index.

Dated: February 15, 1995.

Margaret J. Janes,

Assistant Executive Director (Procurement

Policy).

[FR Doc. 95–4574 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M