15496 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Stay of effective date of Order

establishing final rule.

SUMMARY: This Order stays the effective

date of the Report and Order and

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

April 18, 1994, which adopted the

Commission’s rules regarding privacy

and other requirements for Calling Party

Telephone Numbers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert E. Kimball, (202) 634–7150,

Domestic Services Branch, Domestic

Facilities Division, Common Carrier

Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Order in

CC Docket No. 91–281, FCC 95–119,

adopted March 17, 1995, released March

17, 1995. The item is available for

inspection and copying during normal

hours in the Commission’s FCC

Reference Center (room 230), 1919 M

St., NW., Washington, D.C., or a copy

may be purchased from the duplicating

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc. (202) 857–3800, 2100 M

St., NW., Suite 140, Washington, D.C.

20037. The Order will be published in

the FCC Record.

Analysis of Proceeding

In the process of reviewing petitions

for reconsideration of the Commission’s

Rules governing passage of Calling Party

Number (CPN) on interstate telephone

calls, we have decided on our own

motion that the public interest would

best be served by temporarily staying

effectiveness of 47 CFR 64.1601 and

64.1603. Interested parties have

persuasively argued that no matter how

the issues raised in the petition for

reconsideration are resolved, and even if

the Commission adheres to its original

decision in every material respect,

compliance will not be possible by

April 12, 1995, the effective date

specified in the March 29, 1994 Report

and Order Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 59 FR 18318.

Ordering Clauses

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to

Sections 1, 4(i) of the Communications

Act, 47 U.S.C. 1 and 154(i), that

effectiveness of §§ 64.1601 and 64.1603

of the Commission’s Rules IS STAYED

until further notice.

It is further ordered that this order is

effective upon adoption.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Calling party number identification,

Privacy, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7297 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94–15; RM–8411]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Ravenswood and Elizabeth, West

Virginia

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of MediaCom, Inc., reallots

Channel 291A from Ravenswood to

Elizabeth, West Virginia, as that

community’s first local aural

transmission service, and modifies

Station WRZZ(FM)’s license

accordingly. See 59 FR 10607, March 7,

1994. Channel 291A can be allotted to

Elizabeth in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements without the

imposition of a site restriction. The

coordinates for Channel 291A at

Elizabeth are 39–03–48 and West

Longitude 81–23–43. Since Elizabeth is

located within 320 kilometers (200

miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border,

concurrence of the Canadian

government has been obtained. With

this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 94–15,

adopted March 14, 1995, and released

March 21, 1995. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC 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

contractors, International Transcription

Service, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M

Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, D.C.

20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 303, 48 Stat., as

amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, as amended.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

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

Allotments under West Virginia, is

amended by removing Channel 291A at

Ravenswood and adding Elizabeth,

Channel 291A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–7299 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94–143]

Television Broadcasting Services;

Albion, Nebraska

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This document allots UHF

Channel 24+ to Albion, Nebraska, in

order to permit Citadel Communications

Co., Inc. to amend it pending

application (File No. BPCT–930726KH)

for Channel 18 at Albion to specify

operation on Channel 24+ without loss

of cut-off protection. See 60 FR 91,

published January 3,1994. The reference

coordinates for Channel 24+ at Albion,

Nebraska, are 41–55–58 and 98–17–23.

With this action, the proceeding is

terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 776–1654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 94–143,

adopted March 13, 1995, and released

March 21, 1995. The full text of this

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230),

1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

The complete text of this decision may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15497

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended,

1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, as amended.

§ 73.606 [Amended]

2. Section 73.606(b), the TV Table of

Allotments under Nebraska, is amended

by adding Channel 24+ at Albion.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–7298 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1819 and 1852

RIN 2700–AB52

NASA Mentor-Protege Program

Policies

AGENCY: Office of Small and

Disadvantaged Business Utilization

(OSDBU), National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Final rule establishes

NASA’s policy on its Mentor-Protege

Program. With respect to prime

contractors, it defines eligibility for

participation, allowable developmental

assistance measures that will enhance

the capabilities of Socially and

Economically Disadvantaged Businesses

to perform NASA contracts and

subcontracts, and incentives for

program participation. Further, it

defines the transportability of

subcontracting goal credit features from

the Department of Defense (DOD)

Mentor-Protege Program to NASA

Contractors. However, the effectiveness

of a mentor under the NASA Program

will be evaluated by the measurable

amount of developmental assistance

provided under NASA contracts.

Participation in the program is

voluntary.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: NASA Office of Small and

Disadvantaged Business Utilization,

NASA Headquarters, (Code K),

Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Rae C. Martel, Telephone: (202)

358–2088.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

NASA published a Proposed Rule on

February 9, 1994 amending the NASA

FAR Supplement to implement a

Mentor-Protege Program. Having

reviewed the public comments on the

Proposed Rule, NASA is publishing this

Final Rule with certain changes to the

provisions set forth in the Proposed

Rule. Many of the comments

represented editorial recommendations

or affirmations for the program. Also, a

number of comments were duplicative

on subject matter. However, the

underlying Mentor-Protege policy has

not been significantly altered as a result

of changes made in response to

comments. The most suggestive

comments and their disposition are

discussed in the preface of this Final

Rule. This Final Rule serves as the

regulatory basis for the Mentor-Protege

Program provisions. For the pilot phase

of the program, Mentor-Protege

applications and activity are limited to

cost-plus-award-fee contracts. The

concept for the NASA Mentor-Protege

Program includes the establishment of a

Prime/Subcontractor relationship

between the mentor and protege firm. In

the role of subcontractor, the protege

will contribute to the contract efforts;

however, to enhance contractual

performance, the protege will receive

developmental assistance, as described

in section 1819.7214, from the prime

contractor mentor firm.

For consistency with Section 7105 of

the Federal Acquisition Streamlining

Act, Public Law 103–355, the categories

of eligible entities defined in section

1819.7202 of the final rule include

‘‘Small Disadvantaged Businesses,

Historically Black Colleges and

Universities and Minority Institutions’’.

Throughout this final rule, these

categories are collectively identified by

the term ‘‘protege’’.

NASA received two hundred and

twenty-seven comments in response to

the Proposed Rule. Several commenters

suggested that NASA provide a

definition of ‘‘high-tech.’’ The agency

high-tech definition is provided in

1819.7202 to provide clarity regarding

the Mentor-Protege Program’s targeted

areas of contract activity. The MentorProtege Program, a key element of

NASA’s socioeconomic program, is

designed to increase the participation of

the entities defined as protege in the

agency’s core mission. Many

commenters suggested that NASA

modify the rule to allow reimbursement

to primes for expenses incurred in

providing developmental assistance to

proteges. The coverage in the final rule

explains that expenses incurred by

mentor firms in providing

developmental assistance to their

protege/subcontractors are allowable.

The language in paragraph 1819.7205

states that the basic condition for

Mentor-Protege requires a prime/

subcontractor relationship between the

mentor and protege. The costs will be

recognized as part of enhancing

contractor performance and are

allowable consistent with the

definitions and requirements in FAR

Part 31. A large number of commenters

requested that NASA provide clarity in

the final rule regarding the fee

arrangement and the earning of award

fee. Future award fee plans of NASA

contracts will be structured such that 15

percent of the available award fee is

allocated for Small Disadvantaged

Business Utilization. Mentor-Protege

will be evaluated under Small

Disadvantaged Utilization as a separate

element and allocated a separate 5

percent of the 15 percent to evaluate the

prime’s performance in the MentorProtege Program. For purposes of

earning award fee, the Mentor firm’s

performance will be evaluated against

the measures described in the NASA

FAR Supplement provisions at

1852.219–79. Many commenters

recommended that while NASA

explains the portability of credit

features from the statute prescribing the

DOD Mentor-Protege Program that are

available to NASA prime contractors, no

provision has been specifically made for

credit against SDB goals with a

multiplier similar to the DOD MentorProtege Program. A multiplier option is

not included in Section 1819.7204 of

the NASA program since no statute or

legislation exists to authorize such an

option. Section 1819.7204 includes only

the features authorized in the statute

creating the DOD program that can be

extended to civilian agencies. A number

of commenters commended NASA for

including a provision allowing proteges

to have multiple mentors. However, a

number of commenters expressed

concern about this provision. Some

concerns centered about proteges with

multiple mentors maintaining

confidentiality; others were concerned

with proteges receiving conflicting

guidance from multiple mentors. It is

recommended that Mentor-Protege

agreements contain some certification

regarding confidentiality and nondisclosure as is routinely utilized in

business relationships. During the

review of Letters of Intent and

Agreements, NASA will scrutinize the

intended areas of developmental

assistance for duplication in certain