Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24469

percentage of the annual existing

appropriation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

The Secretary certifies that this rule

will not have a significant impact on

substantial numbers of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995, Public Law 104–13, all

Departments are required to submit to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval of any

reporting or record-keeping requirement

inherent in a proposed or final rule.

This NPRM contains an information

collection requirement in section 1311.3

with regard to the application process

for individuals applying for the HSFP.

The respondents are the applicants. The

Department needs to require an

application process in order to make

determinations about the applicants’

eligibility to participate in the HSFP.

The frequency of responses from

applicants (new) will be annual. The

Administration for Children and

Families will consider comments by the

public on the proposed requirement for

applications in evaluating the accuracy

of our estimate of the burden hours. We

estimate that it will take approximately

two hours per applicant to supply the

relevant information. Although we do

not know how many individuals will

complete the application process for

this new program, we anticipate

receiving approximately 200

applications per year (this figure may

increase or decrease). The total burden

estimate at this time is approximately

400 hours. This section will be

submitted to OMB for review and

approval in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act.

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the collections of

information contained in these

proposed regulations between 30 and 60

days after publication of this document

in the Federal Register. Therefore, a

comment is best assured of having its

full effect if OMB receives it within 30

days of publication. This does not affect

the deadline for the public to comment

to the Department on the proposed

regulations. Written comments to OMB

should be sent directly to the following

address: Office of Management and

Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project,

725 17th Street, N.W. Washington D.C.

20503, Attn: Ms. Wendy Taylor.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1311

Head Start Fellows, Head Start.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 93.600, Project Head Start)

Dated: April 1, 1996.

Mary Jo Bane,

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.

For the reasons set forth in the

Preamble, 45 CFR Chapter XIII is

proposed to be amended by adding a

new Part 1311 as follows:

PART 1311—HEAD START FELLOWS

PROGRAM

Sec.

1311.1 Head Start Fellows Program

purpose.

1311.2 Definitions.

1311.3 Application process.

1311.4 Qualifications, selection, and

placement.

1311.5 Duration of Fellowships and status

of Head Start Fellows.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.

§ 1311.1 Head Start Fellows Program

purpose.

(a) This Part establishes regulations

implementing section 648A(d) of the

Head Start Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

9801 et seq., applicable to the

administration of the Head Start Fellows

Program, including selection,

placement, duration and status of the

Head Start Fellows.

(b) As provided in section 648A(d) of

the Act, the Head Start Fellows Program

is designed to enhance the ability of

Head Start Fellows to make significant

contributions to Head Start and to other

child development and family services

programs.

§ 1311.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

Act means the Head Start Act, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.

Associate Commissioner means the

Associate Commissioner of the Head

Start Bureau in the Administration on

Children, Youth and Families.

Head Start Fellows means individuals

who participate in the Head Start

Fellows Program, who may be staff in

local Head Start programs or other

individuals working in the field of child

development and family services.

§ 1311.3 Application process.

An individual who wishes to obtain a

Fellowship must submit an application

to the Associate Commissioner. The

Administration for Children and

Families will publish an annual

announcement of the availability and

number of Fellowships in the Federal

Register. Federal employees are not

eligible to apply.

§ 1311.4 Qualifications, selection, and

placement.

(a) The Act specifies that an applicant

must be working on the date of

application in a local Head Start

program or otherwise working in the

field of child development and family

services. The qualifications of the

applicants for Head Start Fellowship

positions will be competitively

reviewed. The Associate Commissioner

will make the final selection of the Head

Start Fellows.

(b) Head Start Fellows may be placed

in:

(1) The Head Start national and

regional Offices;

(2) Local Head Start agencies and

programs;

(3) Institutions of higher education;

(4) Public or private entities and

organizations concerned with services

to children and families; and

(5) Other appropriate settings..

(c) A Head Start Fellow who is not an

employee of a local Head Start agency

or program may only be placed in the

national or regional offices within the

Department of Health and Human

Services that administer Head Start or

local Head Start agencies.

(d) Head Start Fellows shall not be

placed in any agency whose primary

purpose, or one of whose major

purposes is to influence Federal, State

or local legislation.

§ 1311.5 Duration of Fellowships and

status of Head Start Fellows.

(a) Head Start Fellowships will be for

terms of one year, and may be renewed

for a term of one additional year.

(b) For the purposes of compensation

for injuries under chapter 81 of title 5,

United States Code, Head Start Fellows

shall be considered to be employees, or

otherwise in the service or employment,

of the Federal Government.

(c) Head Start Fellows assigned to the

national or regional Offices within the

Department of Health and Human

Services shall be considered employees

in the Executive Branch of the Federal

Government for the purposes of chapter

11 of Title 18, United States Code, and

for the purposes of any administrative

standards of conduct applicable to the

employees of the agency to which they

are assigned.

[FR Doc. 96–12124 Filed 5–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
24470 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 15, 22, and 24

[WT Docket No. 95–157; RM–8643; FCC 96–

196]

Microwave Relocation Rules;

Comment Request for Blocks C

Through F

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: By this Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, the Commission

seeks further comment on certain

aspects of the microwave relocation

rules for C, D, E, and F blocks.

Specifically, the Commission seeks

further comment on whether to adjust

the negotiation periods by shortening

the voluntary negotiation period and

lengthening the mandatory negotiation

period for the D, E, and F blocks, and

whether the negotiation periods for the

C block should be subject to the same

adjustment. The Commission also seeks

comment on whether microwave

incumbents should be permitted to seek

reimbursement from PCS licensees

through participation in the cost-sharing

plan. The Commission believes that the

rules proposed herein, will expedite the

clearing of the 2 GHz band in an

equitable and efficient manner.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before May 28, 1996 and reply

comments on or before June 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Hamra (202) 418–0620,

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, adopted April

24, 1996 and released April 30, 1996.

The complete text of this Further Notice

of Proposed Rule Making is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, Room 230, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, at (202) 857–3800, 2100 M

Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington,

D.C. 20037.

FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE

MAKING

I. Background

1. In the First Report and Order and

Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making

in ET Docket No. 92–9, 57 FR 49020

(October 29, 1992) the Commission

reallocated the 1850–1990, 2110–2150,

and 2160–2200 MHz bands from private

and common carrier fixed microwave

services to emerging technology

services. The Commission also

established procedures for 2 GHz

microwave incumbents to be relocated

to available frequencies in higher bands

or to other media, by encouraging

incumbents to negotiate voluntary

relocation agreements with emerging

technology licensees or manufacturers

of unlicensed devices when frequencies

used by the incumbent are needed to

implement the emerging technology.

The First Report and Order stated that,

should negotiations fail, the emerging

technology licensee could request

involuntary relocation of the incumbent,

provided that the emerging technology

service provider pays the cost of

relocating the incumbent to a

comparable facility.

2. In the Commission’s Third Report

and Order in ET Docket No. 92–9, 58 FR

46547 (September 2, 1993) as modified

on reconsideration by the Memorandum

Opinion and Order, 59 FR 19642 (April

25, 1994) the Commission established

additional details of the transition plan

to enable emerging technology providers

to relocate incumbent facilities. The

relocation process consists of two

negotiation periods that must expire

before an emerging technology licensee

may request involuntary relocation. The

first is a fixed two-year period for

voluntary negotiations—three years for

public safety incumbents, e.g., police,

fire, and emergency medical—

commencing with the Commission’s

acceptance of applications for emerging

technology services, during which the

emerging technology providers and

microwave licensees may negotiate any

mutually acceptable relocation

agreement. Negotiations are strictly

voluntary. If no agreement is reached,

the emerging technology licensee may

initiate a one-year mandatory

negotiation period—or two-year

mandatory period if the incumbent is a

public safety licensee—during which

the parties are required to negotiate in

good faith.

3. Should the parties fail to reach an

agreement during the mandatory

negotiation period, the emerging

technology provider may request

involuntary relocation of the existing

facility. Involuntary relocation requires

that the emerging technology provider

(1) guarantee payment of all costs of

relocating the incumbent to a

comparable facility; (2) complete all

activities necessary for placing the new

facilities into operation, including

engineering and frequency coordination;

and (3) build and test the new

microwave (or alternative) system. Once

comparable facilities are made available

to the incumbent microwave operator,

the Commission will amend the 2 GHz

license of the incumbent to secondary

status. After relocation, the microwave

incumbent is entitled to a one-year trial

period to determine whether the

facilities are indeed comparable, and if

they are not, the emerging technology

licensee must remedy the defects or pay

to relocate the incumbent back to its

former or an equivalent 2 GHz

frequency.

4. Under these procedures, it is

possible for a relocation agreement

between a PCS licensee and a

microwave incumbent to have

spectrum-clearing benefits for other PCS

licensees as well. First, some microwave

spectrum blocks overlap with one or

more PCS blocks, because the spectrum

in the 1850–1990 MHz band was

assigned differently in the two services.

Second, incumbents’ receivers may be

susceptible to adjacent or co-channel

interference from PCS licensees in more

than one PCS spectrum block. For

example, a microwave link located

partially in Block A, partially in Block

D, and adjacent to Block B, may cause

interference to or receive interference

from PCS licensees that are licensed in

each of those blocks. Third, because

most 2 GHz microwave licensees

operate multi-link systems, PCS

licensees may be asked to relocate links

that do not directly encumber their own

spectrum or service area in order to

obtain the microwave incumbent’s

voluntary consent to relocate. Finally,

the Unlicensed PCS Ad Hoc Committee

for 2 GHz Microwave Transition and

Management Inc. (‘‘UTAM’’), the

frequency coordinator for the PCS

spectrum designated for unlicensed

devices, expects that some licensed PCS

providers will have to relocate links in

the unlicensed band that are paired with

links in licensed PCS spectrum. The

Commission has designated UTAM to

coordinate relocation in the 1910–1930

MHz band, which has been reallocated

for unlicensed PCS devices. Once the

1910–1930 MHz band is clear, or there

is little risk of interference to the

remaining incumbents, and UTAM has

recovered its relocation costs, UTAM’s

role will end and it will be dissolved.

5. Because the Commission is

licensing PCS providers at different

times and multiple PCS licensees may

benefit from the relocation of a

microwave system or even a single link,

the first PCS licensee in the market

potentially bears a disproportionate

share of relocation costs. Subsequent

PCS licensees to enter the market may
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24471

therefore obtain a windfall. As a result

of this potential ‘‘free rider’’ problem,

the first PCS licensee in the market

might not relocate a link or might delay

its deployment of PCS if it believes that

another PCS licensee will relocate the

link first, thus paying for some or all of

the relocation costs. In addition, unless

cost-sharing is adopted, PCS licensees

might not engage in relocation that is

cost-effective if viewed from an

industry-wide perspective. For example,

a link that encumbers two PCS blocks

might not be moved if the cost is greater

than the benefit to any single licensee,

even though the joint benefit received

by two or more licensees exceeds the

cost of relocating the link.

6. In 1994, PCIA proposed a costsharing plan to alleviate the free rider

problem, which the Commission found

to be attractive in theory but dismissed

as underdeveloped. On May 5, 1995,

Pacific Bell (‘‘PacBell’’) filed a Petition

for Rulemaking. In its petition, PacBell

proposed a detailed cost-sharing plan in

which PCS licensees on all blocks,

licensed and unlicensed, would share in

the cost of relocating microwave

stations. On May 16, 1995, the

Commission requested comment on

PacBell’s proposal. Most parties that

commented on PacBell’s Petition for

Rulemaking supported the cost-sharing

concept, although the comments

reflected some differences regarding the

details of the proposal. On October 12,

1995, the Commission adopted a Notice

of Proposed Rule Making, 60 FR 55529

(November 1, 1995) which sought

comment on a modified version of the

plan proposed by PacBell.

7. The Commission also adopted and

released with this Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, the First Report

and Order changing and clarifying

certain aspects of the microwave

relocation rules adopted in the

Commission’s Emerging Technologies

proceeding, ET Docket No. 92–9.

II. Further Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

8. In this Further Notice of Proposed

Rule Making, the Commission seeks

comment on whether to shorten the

voluntary negotiation period and

lengthen the mandatory negotiation

period for the D, E, and F blocks. The

Commission also seeks comment on

whether the negotiation periods for the

C block should be subject to the same

adjustment. Finally, the Commission

proposes that microwave incumbents be

permitted to relocate some of their own

links and obtain reimbursement rights

pursuant to the cost-sharing plan

adopted in the First Report and Order.

A. Voluntary and Mandatory

Negotiation Periods for C, D, E, and F

Blocks

9. The Commission agrees with

commenters, however, that changing the

negotiation timetable for PCS blocks

other than the A and B blocks may not

raise the same concerns. In the case of

the D, E, and F blocks, bidding has not

commenced and there are no ongoing

negotiations between PCS licensees and

incumbents. Therefore, the Commission

believes it is appropriate to consider

whether the relocation process in these

blocks would benefit from adjusting the

negotiation periods. Specifically, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

to adjust the negotiation periods for the

D, E, and F blocks by shortening the

voluntary negotiation period by one

year and lengthening the mandatory

period by one year. Under this

approach, non-public safety incumbents

would have a one-year negotiation

period instead of the two-year

negotiation period provided under

current rules, and the mandatory

negotiation period would be lengthened

from one to two years. Similarly, public

safety incumbents would have a twoyear voluntary negotiation period

instead of a three-years period, and a

three-year mandatory negotiation period

instead of a two-year period.

10. This approach could potentially

accelerate the development of PCS in

the D, E, and F blocks by speeding up

the negotiation process and creating

additional incentives for incumbents to

enter into early agreements. At the same

time, while incumbents would be

required to commence mandatory

negotiations sooner than under the

existing rules, they would have the

same total amount of time for

negotiations provided under the existing

rules before they become subject to

involuntary relocation. The Commission

seeks comment on whether this

adjustment would effectively balance

the interests of PCS licensees in

bringing service to the public quickly

and the interest of microwave

incumbents in making a smooth

transition to relocated facilities.

11. Finally, the Commission seeks

comment on whether to make the same

changes discussed above to the

voluntary and mandatory negotiation

periods applicable to C block. The

Commission notes that C block is in a

different posture from the D, E, and F

blocks because the C block auction is

ongoing and possibly near conclusion,

and bidding has been based on the

current rules. At the same time, the

voluntary negotiation period for C block

has not yet commenced, so unlike A and

B blocks, there are no ongoing

negotiations currently taking place in

reliance on the current rules. The

Commission seeks comment on whether

shortening the voluntary period and

lengthening the mandatory negotiation

period for C block would facilitate the

development of PCS in this band and

what effect it would have on

negotiations between C block licensees

and microwave incumbents.

B. Microwave Incumbent Participation

in Cost-Sharing Plan

12. The Commission tentatively

concludes that microwave incumbents

that relocate themselves should be

allowed to obtain reimbursement rights

and collect reimbursement under the

cost-sharing plan from later-entrant PCS

licensees that would have interfered

with the relocated link. The

Commission agrees with incumbents

that allowing incumbent participation

might facilitate system-wide relocations

and could potentially expedite the

deployment of PCS. The Commission is

concerned, however, about what the

incentive would be for an incumbent to

minimize costs, if the incumbent knows

in advance that it may be able to recover

some of its expenses from PCS

licensees. The Commission seeks

comment, therefore, on how subsequent

PCS licensees could be protected from

being required to pay a larger amount to

an incumbent that relocates itself than

to another PCS licensee who has an

incentive to minimize expenses. In

addition, the Commission also questions

whether a large number of incumbents

would avail themselves of such an

option, given that the Commission’s

rules require PCS licensees to pay for

the entire cost of providing incumbents

with comparable facilities. Assuming

the Commission allows incumbent

participation, the Commission seeks

comment on whether, for purposes of

the cost-sharing formula, the

Commission should treat incumbents as

if they were the initial PCS relocator.

III. Conclusion

13. The Commission believes that the

rules proposed in this Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making will promote the

public policy goals set forth by

Congress. The Commission believes that

the proposals for negotiation and

reimbursement will facilitate the rapid

relocation of microwave facilities

operating in the 2 GHz band, and will

allow PCS licensees to offer service to

the public in an expeditious manner.
24472 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission has prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the expected impact on small entities

of the policies and rules proposed in

this Further NPRM (Further Notice).

Written public comments are requested

on the IRFA.

Reason for Action: This rulemaking

proceeding was initiated to secure

comment on whether the negotiation

period for the D, E, and F block PCS

licensees should be adjusted by

shortening the voluntary period by one

year (i.e., to one year for non-public

safety incumbents and two years for

public safety incumbents) and

lengthening the mandatory negotiation

period for these blocks by a

corresponding year (i.e., to two years for

non-public safety incumbents and three

years for public safety incumbents);

whether the negotiation periods for the

C block should be subject to the same

readjustments as the negotiation periods

for the D, E, and F blocks; and whether

microwave incumbents should be

permitted to seek reimbursement from

PCS licensees through the cost-sharing

plan. This proposal would facilitate

negotiations between the parties and

promote the efficient relocation of

microwave licensees by encouraging

microwave incumbents to relocate their

own microwave systems, thus bringing

PCS services to the public in an speedy

manner.

Objectives: Our objective is to

facilitate negotiations between PCS

licensees and microwave incumbents.

This proposal would also enable

microwave incumbents who pay to

relocate their own links to collect

reimbursement from PCS licensees that

benefit from the relocation. Cost-sharing

is necessary to enhance the speed of

relocation and provide an incentive to

incumbents to move their own links.

This action would result in faster

deployment of PCS and delivery of

service to the public.

Legal Basis: The proposed action is

authorized under the Communications

Act, Sections 4(i), 7, 303(c), 303(f),

303(g), 303(r), and 332, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),

303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 332, as

amended.

Reporting, Record keeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements: Under the

proposal contained in the Further

NPRM, microwave incumbents who

relocate their own links would be

required to document the relocation

costs paid and report them to a central

clearinghouse. Later PCS market

entrants would then be required to file

a Prior Coordination Notification with

the clearinghouse and, if necessary,

reimburse the incumbent for relocation

expenses.

Federal Rules Which Overlap,

Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules:

None.

Description, Potential Impact, and

Number of Small Entities Involved: This

proposal would benefit small PCS

licensees by facilitating negotiations

with microwave incumbents and

allowing them to bring their services to

market sooner. This proposal would

also benefit small microwave

incumbents by enabling them to relocate

their entire system at once and collect

reimbursement from PCS licensees who

benefit from the resulting clearance of

the spectrum. Such incumbents would

therefore benefit from the reduced time

and administrative inconvenience

involved with relocating links at

different times. The 2 GHz fixed

microwave bands support a number of

industries that provide vital services to

the public. We are committed to

ensuring that the incumbents’ services

are not disrupted and that the economic

impact of this proceeding on the

incumbents is minimal. We must further

take into consideration that not all of

the incumbent licensees are large

businesses, particularly in the bands

above 2 GHz, and that many of the

licensees are local government entities

that are not funded through rate

regulation. We believe that this

proceeding would further our policy of

encouraging rapid deployment of PCS

and system-wide relocations of

microwave incumbents. After evaluating

comments filed in response to the

Further NPRM, the Commission will

examine further the impact of all rule

changes on small entities and set forth

its findings in the Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis.

Significant Alternatives Minimizing

the Impact on Small Entities Consistent

with the Stated Objectives: We have

reduced burdens wherever possible. The

regulatory burdens we have retained are

necessary in order to ensure that the

public receives the benefits of

innovative new services in a prompt

and efficient manner. We will continue

to examine alternatives in the future

with the objectives of eliminating

unnecessary regulations and minimizing

any significant economic impact on

small entities.

IRFA Comments: We request written

public comment on the foregoing Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Comments must have a separate and

distinct heading designating them as

responses to the IRFA and must be filed

by the comment deadlines set forth in

this Further NPRM.

B. Ex Parte Rules—Non-Restricted

Proceeding

This is a non-restricted notice and

comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex

parte presentations are permitted except

during the Sunshine Agenda period,

provided they are disclosed as provided

in Commission rules.

C. Comment Period

Pursuant to applicable procedures set

forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s rules, interested parties

may file comments on or before May 28,

1996, and reply comments on or before

June 7, 1996. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

and four copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

you want each Commissioner to receive

a personal copy of your comments, you

must file an original plus nine copies.

You should send comments and reply

comments to Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the Reference Center

of the Federal Communications

Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. A copy

of all comments should also be filed

with the Commission’s copy contractor,

ITS, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite

140, (202) 857–3800.

D. Authority

Authority for issuance of this Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making is

contained in the Communications Act,

Sections 4(i), 7, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),

303(r), and 332, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157,

303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 332, as

amended.

E. Ordering Clauses

It is ordered that the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, as required by

Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, and as set forth in Section VII(A)

is Adopted.

It is further ordered that the Secretary

shall send a copy of this Further Notice

of Proposed Rule Making to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 22

Radio.

47 CFR Part 24

Personal communications services.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24473

47 CFR Part 101

Fixed microwave services.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12269 Filed 5–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 52

Federal Acquisition Regulation; Use

and Charges Clause Class Deviation

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Notice of proposed class

deviation.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense

(DoD) is proposing a class deviation

from the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) that simplifies the method of

determining rental charges for

government property. The proposed

class deviation will allow defense

contractors to propose rental charges for

the commercial use of government

property and real property while

revisions to the FAR are being drafted.

DATES: Comments on the proposed class

deviation should be submitted in

writing to the address shown below on

or before June 14, 1996 to be considered

in the formulation of the final class

deviation.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to: Ms.

Angelena Moy, MPI, Room 3E144,

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3000.

FAX (703) 695–7596.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Angelena Moy, telephone (703)

695–1098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

A notice of proposed class deviation

was published in the Federal Register

on September 6, 1995 (60 FR 46259).

DoD proposed to deviate from the clause

at FAR 52.245–9 to expedite

implementation of simplified

government property rental procedures.

After evaluating the public comments,

DoD made substantive revisions to the

proposed class deviation.

Therefore, DoD now proposes to

deviate from the clause at FAR 52.245–

9 as follows:

Part 52—Solicitation Provisions and

Contract Clauses

52.245–9 Use and Charges

This deviation authorizes DoD to use

the following clauses in lieu of the

clause at 52.245–9. The clause requires

contractors, for real property and

associated fixtures, to obtain certified

property appraisals that compute a

monthly, daily, or hourly rental rate for

comparable commercial property.

Rental charges would be determined by

multiplying the rental time by an

appraisal rental rate expressed as a rate

per hour. For other government

property, rental charges are based upon

the property’s acquisition cost and the

actual rental time. The clause permits

contractors to request that the

Government consider alternate rental

charge methods for either real or other

property if the contractor considers a

time-based rental to be unreasonable or

impracticable.

USE AND CHARGES (APR 1984)

(DEVIATION)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause—

Acquisition cost means the acquisition cost

recorded in the Contractor’s property control

system or, in the absence of such record, the

value attributed by the Government to a

government property item for purposes of

determining a reasonable rental charge.

Government property means property

owned or leased by the Government.

Real property means land and rights in

land, ground improvements, utility

distribution systems, and buildings and other

structures. It does not include foundations

and other work necessary for installing

special tooling, special test equipment, or

equipment.

Rental period means the calendar period

during which government property is made

available for commercial purposes.

Rental time means the number of hours, to

the nearest whole hour, rented property is

actually used for commercial purposes. It

includes time to set up the property for such

purposes, perform required maintenance, and

restore the property to its condition prior to

rental.

(b) General. (1) Rental requests must be

submitted to the administrative Contracting

Officer, identify the property for which rental

is requested, propose a rental period, and

calculate an estimated rental charge by using

the Contractor’s best estimate of rental time

in the formulae described in paragraph (c) of

this clause.

(2) The Contractor shall not use

government property for commercial

purposes until a rental charge for real

property, or estimated rental charge for other

property, is agreed upon. Rented property

shall be used only on a non-interference

basis.

(c) Rental charge. (1) Real property and

associated fixtures. (i) The Contractor shall

obtain, at its expense, a property appraisal

from an independent licensed, accredited, or

certified appraiser that computes a monthly,

daily, or hourly rental rate for comparable

commercial property. The appraisal may be

used to compute rentals under this clause

throughout its effective period or, if an

effective period is not stated in the appraisal,

for one year following the date the appraisal

was performed. The Contractor shall submit

the appraisal to the administrative

Contracting Officer at least 30 days prior to

the date the property is needed for

commercial use. Except as provided in

paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this clause, the

administrative Contracting Officer shall use

the appraisal rental rate to determine a

reasonable rental charge.

(ii) Rental charges shall be determined by

multiplying the rental time by the appraisal

rental rate expressed as a rate per hour.

Monthly or daily appraisal rental rates shall

be divided by 720 or 24, respectively, to

determine an hourly rental rate.

(iii) When the administrative Contracting

Officer has reason to believe the appraisal

rental rate is not reasonable, he or she shall

promptly notify the Contractor and provide

his or her rationale. The parties may agree on

an alternate means for computing a

reasonable rental charge.

(2) Other government property. The

Contractor may elect to calculate the final

rental charge using the appraisal method

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this clause

subject to the constraints therein or the

following formula in which rental time shall

be expressed in increments of not less than

one hour with portions of hours rounded to

the next higher hour—

Rental charge (Rental Time in hours) (.02 per month) (Acquisition Cost)

720 hours per month =

(3) Alternate methodology. The Contractor

may request consideration of an alternate

basis for computing the rental charge if it

considers a time-based rental unreasonable or

impractical.

(d) Rental payments. (1) Rent is due at the

time and place specified by the Contracting

Officer. If a time is not specified, the rental

is due 60 days following completion of the

rental period. The Contractor shall calculate

the rental due, and furnish records or other

supporting data in sufficient detail to permit

the administrative Contracting Officer to

verify the rental time and computation.

Payment shall be made by check payable to

the Treasurer of the United States and sent

to the payment office specified in this

contract or by electronic funds transfer to

that office.

(2) Interest will be charged if payment is

not made by the specified payment date or,