        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-AX39
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 29

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of Availability of Amendment 29 to the Fishery Management Plan for Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 29 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 29 proposes actions to establish an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for grouper and tilefish species, establish design elements of the program, allow permit stacking, and establish dual classifications to the shallow water and deepwater management units for speckled hind and warsaw grouper. The measures contained in the subject amendment are intended to reduce effort in the Gulf of Mexico grouper and tilefish fisheries.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on June 8, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the amendment, identified by “0648-AX39”, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: Susan Gerhart, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2008-0223” in the keyword search, then check the box labeled “Select to find documents accepting comments or submissions”, then select “Send a Comment or Submission.” NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of Amendment 29 may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone 813-348-1630; fax 813-348-1711; e-mail gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org; or may be downloaded from the Council's website at http://www.gulfcouncil.org/. Amendment 29 includes an Environmental Impact Statement, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727-824-5305; fax: 727-824-5308; e-mail: Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        Current regulatory measures used to manage the commercial fisheries for the grouper/tilefish complex in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) include a license limitation system, quotas, trip limits, minimum size limits, area/gear restrictions, and seasonal closures. Nonetheless, the commercial grouper and tilefish fisheries have become overcapitalized, which has caused increasingly restrictive commercial regulations. Under the current management structure, the commercial grouper and tilefish fisheries are expected to continue to have higher than necessary levels of capital investment, increased operating costs, increased likelihood of shortened seasons, reduced safety at-sea, wide fluctuations in grouper supply, and depressed ex-vessel prices.
        The Council chose a multi-species IFQ program for grouper and tilefish species in the Gulf EEZ as the preferred alternative for effort management. The Magnuson-Stevens Act stipulates the Council may not submit, and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) may not approve, an IFQ program that has not first been approved by a majority of eligible voters in a referendum. NMFS conducted a referendum in December 2008, with more than 80 percent of the respondents voting in favor of the IFQ program.
        Amendment 29 contains many design elements of the IFQ program, as well as major requirements for limited access privilege programs listed in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Initial IFQ share distribution, and transfer of shares and allocation during the first 5 years, would be restricted to commercial reef fish permit holders. Initially, shares would be distributed proportionately among eligible participants based on landings during 1999-2004, with an allowance for dropping 1 year. The Regional Administrator would establish a formal appeals process and reserve 3 percent of the total available IFQ shares during the first year of the program for use in resolving disputes. If NMFS implemented commercial quota adjustments or reallocations, IFQ allocation would be redistributed proportionally among shareholders.

        Five species-specific share types would be established for red grouper, gag, other shallow water groupers, deepwater groupers, and tilefishes. In addition, 4 percent of red grouper allocation and 8 percent of gag grouper allocation for each participant would be converted into multi-use allocation valid for harvesting red or gag grouper, with restrictions. Each share type would have a separate share cap equal to the maximum share of that type assigned to an IFQ participant during initial distribution. A cap on total annual allocation equivalent to the share caps would also be established.
        All dealer and shareholder operations would be conducted online. Up to 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of a transaction could be charged as cost recovery fees. IFQ share or allocation holders would be responsible for these fees and IFQ dealers would be responsible for fee collection and submission on a quarterly basis. Fishermen would be allowed to select landing sites for IFQ programs, but would require approval by NMFS Office of Law Enforcement.
        Amendment 29 also contains actions to allow permit consolidation and to create dual classification for speckled hind and warsaw grouper. Permit consolidation would allow the owner of multiple Gulf of Mexico reef fish commercial vessel permits to consolidate some or all of his/her permits into one, which could contribute to a faster reduction in the number of permits and ease permit renewal requirements. Dual classification of speckled hind and warsaw grouper would reduce bycatch and allow more flexibility in the IFQ program because these species are caught in both shallow and deep water.

        The Council has submitted Amendment 29 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 29 has been received from the Council. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Comments received by June 8, 2009, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: April 1, 2009.
          Kristen C. Koch,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-7855 Filed 4-7-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Part 175
        [Docket No. RSPA-00-7762 (HM-206C)]
        RIN 2137-AD29
        Hazardous Materials: Availability of Information for Hazardous Materials Transported by Aircraft

          AGENCY:
          Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          RSPA proposes to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to require an aircraft operator to: Place a telephone number on the notification of pilot-in-command that can be contacted during an in-flight emergency to obtain information about any hazardous materials aboard the aircraft; retain a copy of the notification of pilot-in-command at the aircraft operator's principal place of business for one year; retain and make readily accessible a copy of the notification of pilot-in-command, or the information contained in it, at the airport of departure until the flight leg is completed; and make readily accessible a copy of the notification of pilot-in-command, or the information contained in it, at the planned airport of arrival until the flight leg is completed. The intent of this proposal is to increase the level of safety associated with the transportation of hazardous materials aboard aircraft.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by April 26, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          Address comments to the Dockets Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL 401, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket number, RSPA-00-7762 (HM-206C). You should submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received, you should include a self-addressed stamped postcard. You may also submit your comments by e-mail to http://dms.dot.gov or by telefax to (202)366-3753. The Dockets Management System is located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the above address. You may view public dockets between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Internet users can access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the Federal Register Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          John A. Gale, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001 telephone (202) 366-8553.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        Under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180), an offeror of a hazardous material must provide the aircraft operator with a signed shipping paper containing the quantity and a basic shipping description of the material being offered for transportation (i.e., proper shipping name, hazard class, UN or NA identification number, and packing group); certain emergency response information; and a 24-hour emergency response telephone number. (49 CFR part 172, subparts C and G). Additional information may be required depending on the specific hazardous material being shipped. (49 CFR 172.203). A copy of this shipping paper must accompany the shipment it covers during transportation aboard the aircraft. (49 CFR 175.35).
        In addition to the shipping paper accompanying each hazardous materials shipment, an aircraft operator must provide the pilot-in-command of the aircraft written information relative to the hazardous materials on board the plane. (49 CFR 175.33). For each hazardous materials shipment, this information must include:
        (1) Proper shipping name, hazard class, and identification number;
        (2) technical and chemical group name, if applicable;
        (3) any additional shipping description requirements applicable to specific types or shipments of hazardous materials or to materials shipped under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requirements;
        (4) total number of packages;
        (5) net quantity or gross weight, as appropriate, for each package;
        (6) the location of each package on the aircraft;
        (7) for Class 7 (radioactive) materials, the number of packages, overpacks or freight containers, their transport index, and their location on the plane; and
        (8) an indication, if applicable, a hazardous material is being transported under terms of an exemption.

        This information must be readily available to the pilot-in-command during flight. In essence, the Notification of pilot-in-command (NOPC) provides the same information to emergency response personnel as a shipping paper for transportation by rail or public highway. In addition, emergency response information applicable to the specific hazardous materials being transported by aircraft must be available for use at all times the materials are present on the plane, and must be maintained on board in the same manner as the notification of pilot-in-command. (See subpart G of part 172 for requirements relating to emergency response information.) In an emergency situation, the flight crew may be able to transfer information on the hazardous materials aboard the aircraft to air traffic control, or emergency responders may be able to retrieve the information from the aircraft after it lands. However, during an in-flight emergency, the flight crew will most likely be attending to more pressing tasks, thus making retrieval of the information from the flight crew impractical. Also, in many emergencies the aircraft is damaged or destroyed, making retrieval of this information from the aircraft impossible. Therefore, we need to amend the HMR to assure the information on the hazardous materials carried aboard the aircraft is available to emergency responders through sources other than the flight crew.
        This proposal has its origins in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA). Section 25 of HMTUSA (Pub. L. 101-615, 104 Stat. 3273) required the Secretary to conduct a rulemaking to evaluate methods for establishing and operating a central reporting system and computerized telecommunication data center. HMTUSA mandated we contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the feasibility and necessity of establishing and operating a central reporting system and computerized telecommunication data center. Areas of the study included: (1) Receiving, storing, and retrieving data concerning all daily shipments of hazardous materials; (2) identifying hazardous materials being transported by any mode of transportation; and (3) providing information to facilitate responses to accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials.

        In conjunction with the NAS study, RSPA issued an ANPRM entitled “Improvements to Hazardous Materials Identification Systems” on June 9, 1992 (Docket HM-206; 57 FR 24532). The ANPRM included 63 primary questions on the feasibility of establishing a central reporting system, methods of improving the placarding system, and the feasibility of requiring each carrier to maintain a continually monitored emergency response telephone number.
        NAS published its report on April 29, 1993. (A copy of the NAS report can be obtained from the Transportation Research Board at 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418.) The central recommendation of the report advises the Federal government not to attempt to implement a national central reporting system, as originally proposed for consideration. NAS found the existing hazardous materials communication system effective, in most instances; and, further, that the information available at hazardous materials transportation incident sites meets the critical information needs of emergency responders.
        In the NPRM issued under Docket HM-206 on August 15, 1994 (59 FR 41848), we did not propose to establish a centralized reporting system and telecommunication data center. Instead, we concluded the national central reporting system described in detail in HMTUSA would be extremely complicated, burdensome, expensive to implement, and of questionable benefit. We believe this conclusion and the central recommendation of the NAS report are still valid.
        The changes proposed in this notice are also responsive to a recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and are consistent with recent changes to the ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions). The NTSB recommends that RSPA:

          Require, within two years, that air carriers transporting hazardous materials have the means, 24 hours per day, to quickly retrieve and provide consolidated specific information about the identity (including proper shipping name), hazard class, quantity, number of packages, and location of all hazardous material on an airplane in a timely manner to emergency responders. (A-98-80).

        This recommendation is contained in NTSB's August 12, 1998, letter to RSPA, which has been placed in the public docket. The recommendation follows NTSB's investigation of a September 5, 1996, accident involving a Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) flight from Memphis, Tennessee, to Boston, Massachusetts (a detailed description of the incident can be found in the ANPRM). NTSB found the on-board hazardous materials shipping papers and notification of pilot-in-command (NOPC) were not available to emergency responders. Further, NTSB discovered FedEx did not have the capability to generate, in a timely manner, a single list indicating the shipping name, hazard class, identification number, quantity, and location of hazardous materials on the airplane. To prepare such a list, according to the NTSB, FedEx would have had to compile information from individual shipping papers for each individual shipment of hazardous materials on board the aircraft. NTSB contrasted this with the railroads' practice of generating a computerized list of all the freight cars containing hazardous materials on a given train, with the shipping name, hazard class, identification number, quantity and type of packaging, and emergency response guidance for each hazardous material. NTSB stated such a list provides information to emergency responders in a timely fashion and in a useful format.
        NTSB also stated shipping papers are less likely to be available or accessible after an aircraft accident than after a rail, highway, or water accident, because of the likelihood of fire or destruction of the airplane. Due to the danger of fire, a flight crew is also less likely to have time to retrieve shipping papers after an accident. NTSB concluded the HMR do not adequately address the need for air carriers to have quickly retrievable hazardous materials information in a format useful to emergency responders.
        The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel also considered additional steps that could be taken to improve the availability of information in the event of an aircraft incident. As a result, the Panel revised the ICAO Technical Instructions to: (1) Require the NOPC to be readily accessible at the airport of departure and arrival; and (2) allow an aircraft operator to provide a phone number where a copy of the NOPC could be obtained. In an emergency, the pilot would relay the phone number instead of the specific hazardous materials aboard the aircraft to an air traffic controller (see ICAO Technical Instructions 7;4.3). For informational purposes, we placed in the Docket an excerpt from the reports of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel reflecting discussions on this topic and relevant changes for inclusion in the 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 ICAO Technical Instructions.
        On August 15, 2000, we issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments and suggestions on ways to implement the NTSB recommendation and the need for this or other changes to the HMR. The purpose of this action is to make it easier for emergency responders to obtain shipment information for hazardous materials transported by aircraft. The ANPRM solicited comments on past incidents; practices and procedures currently in use and their costs; information needed by emergency responders; and the benefit, feasibility, and funding of a centralized reporting system (CRS).
        II. Comments to the ANPRM
        We received nine comments in response to the ANPRM. Commenters included a shipper, a freight forwarder, software developers, and trade associations. Commenters who support development of a CRS believe improved response capabilities to aircraft hazardous materials incidents are important to the entire aviation industry. One commenter suggests it would be best if a CRS were developed by an industry advisory committee. Another commenter supports the exploration of the concept of a CRS by an industry task force convened under the auspices of RSPA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). One commenter believes a CRS would help protect crew-members, passengers, emergency response personnel, and persons on the ground. Another commenter states a CRS is the key to rapid and effective information distribution and would provide emergency response personnel and flight crews with valuable information in timely fashion on the types, quantities, and locations of hazardous materials aboard an aircraft. This commenter suggests we charge shippers for the costs associated with the development and operation of the CRS.

        A commenter opposed to the development of a CRS believes the new system will not provide an improvement over the existing, proven emergency response communication system and the complicated operation of a centralized system could make errors likely and result in a substantial decrease in safety. This commenter believes the current requirements in the HMR work well and have achieved an excellent safety record. The commenter suggests improvements are possible, but wholesale changes are not necessary. Another commenter notes RSPA and NAS rejected the proposal for a CRS several years ago because it was impractical and unnecessary. The commenter believes the earlier finding of RSPA and NAS continues to be valid, even though the technology advanced. This commenter states that a government-mandated CRS will force-fit a “one size fits all” solution and stifle further technological advances. Another commenter states that a centralized system is not beneficial or feasible because of the differences in various airlines' information systems and the need to adapt to constantly improving technology. The commenter believes that the additional risk posed during an emergency by properly prepared hazardous materials shipments may not be significant considering the standard fuel capacity of a Boeing 747-400 is approximately 204,340 liters (54,000 gallons), and approximately 54,920 liters (14,500 gallons) for an Airbus A300-200. The commenter also states that in the past, the transport of properly prepared hazardous materials has not proved problematic in air transportation.
        Several commenters note that a system meeting the NTSB recommendation is not only feasible, but is currently available. One current software system has the ability to contact a carrier's data files, and return the identity of the vehicle's contents, if hazardous, within 90 seconds by the process of entering a unique vehicle identifier. However, the developer of this software says it does not know how much it would cost to modify air carrier computer programs to provide accessible, on-scene information. Another computer system described by commenters facilitates the preparation of hazardous material shipments in accordance with applicable domestic and international regulations. The developer of this software claims that all of the information per flight is stored perpetually in a database and an entire NOPC for a given flight can be retrieved and sent via e-mail in seconds. Neither software developer provided specific cost information.
        In response to the question of how quickly should emergency responders have access to information, several of the commenters suggested a time frame within 5 to 10 minutes. One commenter believes it is absolutely critical for emergency response personnel to be able to access the information immediately. This commenter adds that transmission of this information immediately, as opposed to even within 15 minutes, can mean the difference between life and death.
        One commenter suggests that the method of how the information is made available to emergency response personnel should be left optional, as long as it satisfies the NTSB recommendation to quickly provide the information. Another commenter states that RSPA should not dictate the method of delivery, but allow the airlines and the emergency response personnel to use the methods which best fit their needs at the time of the incident. Other commenters believe that the information should be available by phone, fax, and computer, because not all media are available at every airport in the world.
        Regarding the question of how emergency response personnel currently obtain information about cargo aboard an aircraft, several commenters mention in response that, information is transmitted by the aircraft captain in advance of the aircraft landing or from the availability of the NOPC from the flight crew after landing. One commenter explains that many operators maintain copies of the NOPC at departure stations, which are also accessible for information.
        Several commenters who address the issue of a visual stowage plan, believe such a plan would be beneficial for both crew and emergency response personnel, and a map showing the location and a description of the different hazardous materials on-board the aircraft would be particularly helpful. Another commenter counters by pointing out that there are many variables involved with a visual stowage plan—for example, the same type of aircraft may be configured differently and have different compartment and position numbers. The commenter suggests the feasibility of combining both a visual diagram with a CRS seems very remote.
        We received several comments on what, if any, exceptions from a requirement for a CRS should be provided. Most of the commenters state no exceptions should be granted. One commenter suggests if we were to grant exceptions, RSPA would need to establish strict criteria for making exception decisions. Another commenter states RSPA must recognize that an aircraft contains a wide range of hazardous materials as part of its necessary equipment, and exceptions should be considered for these classes of materials.
        III. Proposed Changes to the HMR
        NTSB recommends we “require, within two years, that air carriers transporting hazardous materials have the means, 24 hours per day, to quickly retrieve and provide consolidated specific information about the identity (including proper shipping name), hazard class, quantity, number of packages, and location of all hazardous material on an airplane in a timely manner to emergency responders.” Though not explicitly stated, NTSB believes there is a need to develop some type of computer tracking system, similar to that used by the railroad industry. Such a system could be accessed directly by both the airline industry and emergency responders. We agree the requirements in the HMR related to the accessibility of a NOPC by emergency response personnel in the event of an emergency can be improved. However, we do not agree it is necessary to require airlines to develop computer tracking systems suitable for this purpose. Nothing submitted by NTSB or the commenters contradicts the previous NAS finding that a computer tracking system would be extremely complicated, burdensome, expensive to implement, and of questionable benefit. Therefore, we are not proposing airlines develop computer tracking systems. However, we are proposing changes to the HMR to improve the accessibility of the NOPC to emergency responders.
        Emergencies involving hazardous materials transported by aircraft provide difficulties to emergency responders not usually encountered in other modes of transportation. First, the flight crew may not have time or otherwise be able to provide information during or immediately after the emergency. Second, an aircraft involved in an accident may be damaged to such an extent the information cannot be retrieved from it. In such instances, emergency responders may not know what, if any, hazardous materials are aboard the aircraft. These difficulties cause us to shift our focus away from retrieving hazardous materials information aboard the aircraft or from air crew members.

        We believe these problems support a requirement for information to be accessible from a source other than the aircraft flight crew. The information we currently require on the NOPC is also available on the ground, although there is no requirement for the information to be accessible. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the HMR to require an aircraft operator to: (1) Place a telephone number on the NOPC that can be contacted during an in-flight emergency to obtain information about any hazardous materials aboard the aircraft; (2) retain a copy of the NOPC at the aircraft operator's principal place of business for one year; (3) retain and make readily accessible a copy of the NOPC, or the information contained in it, at the airport of departure until the flight leg is completed; and (4) make readily accessible a copy of the NOPC, or the information contained in it, at the planned airport of arrival until the flight leg is completed. The phone number would be used in those incidents where a pilot does not have time to provide an air traffic controller the information on the NOPC, but can provide a phone number of where the information can be obtained. We are also revising the HMR to clarify the NOPC must identify all hazardous materials carried on the plane, even those loaded at earlier departure points. These changes to the HMR will provide emergency responders with timely and consolidated information about the identity (including proper shipping name, hazard class, quantity, and number of packages), and location of all hazardous material on an airplane.
        The revisions proposed in this NPRM are consistent with the changes recently adopted into the ICAO Technical Instructions, with two exceptions. Our proposal would require an aircraft operator to provide a phone number for where a copy of the NOPC can be obtained, and to retain a copy of the NOPC at the airport of departure. The ICAO Technical Instructions do not contain these requirements.
        VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        If adopted, this proposed rule would not be considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not subject to formal review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule is not considered significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). Due to minimal economic impact of this proposed rule, preparation of a regulatory impact analysis or regulatory evaluation is not warranted. Although we are requiring aircraft operators to retain a copy of the NOPC for one year and retain a copy of the NOPC at the airport of departure, we believe most air carriers, especially the major air carriers, already maintain readily accessible information. Therefore, the costs associated with this proposed rule are minimal. We may revise this determination based on comments we receive.
        B. Executive Order 13132
        This proposed rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This proposed rule would preempt State, local, and Indian tribe requirements, but does not propose any regulation with substantial direct effects on: the States; the relationship between the national government and the States; or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
        The Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) preempting State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered subjects. Covered subjects are:
        (1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous materials;
        (2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous materials;
        (3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;
        ( 4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or
        (5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material.

        This proposed rule addresses covered subject item (3) above and would preempt State, local, and Indian tribe requirements not meeting the “substantively the same” standard. Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at section 5125(b)(2) that, if RSPA issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, RSPA must determine and publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance. RSPA proposes the effective date of Federal preemption be 90 days from publication of a final rule in this matter in the Federal Register.
        C. Executive Order 13175
        We analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this proposed rule does not have tribal implications and does not impose direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
        D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as described in the Act. However, if an agency determines a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act provides the head of the agency may so certify, and an RFA is not required.
        The Small Business Administration criterion specifies an air carrier is “small” if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this proposed rule, small entities are part 121 and part 135 air carriers with 1,500 or fewer employees approved to carry hazardous materials. We identified 729 air carriers meeting this standard.
        As mentioned in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble, it is estimated the cost to the airline industry of this proposal will be $450,000 per year. This estimate comes from an examination of the data in the U.S. Department of Transportation's Air Carrier Traffic Statistic Monthly. From that data we also were able to estimate that small business airlines undertake no more than 25% of all aircraft departures, and thus 25% of the total cost. The average small business is expected to incur a cost of no more than $150 per year. Therefore, I certify this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not, if adopted, result in costs of $100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector.
        F. Paperwork Reduction Act

        This proposed rule may result in a modest increase in annual burden and costs based on a current information collection requirement. The proposal regarding the maintaining of copies of the notification of pilot-in-command results in a modification of an existing information collection requirement. We submitted the modification to OMB for review and approval.
        Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires us to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies a new information collection request we submitted to OMB for approval based on the requirements in this proposed rule. We developed burden estimates to reflect changes in this proposed rule. We estimate the total information collection and recordkeeping burden proposed in this rule would be as follows:
        OMB No. 2137-0034.

          Total Annual Number of Respondents: 1,000.

          Total Annual Responses: 4,250,000.

          Total Annual Burden Hours: 23,611.

          Total Annual Burden Cost: $425,000.
        We specifically request comments on the information collection and recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and maintaining these requirements for approval under this proposed rule.
        Requests for a copy of the information collection should be directed to Deborah Boothe, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (DHM-10), Research and Special Programs Administration, Room 8102, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone (202) 366-8553.

        Written comments should be addressed to the Dockets Unit as identified in the ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking. We should receive comments prior to the close of the comment period identified in the DATES section of this rulemaking. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. If these proposed requirements are adopted in a final rule, RSPA will submit the information collection and recordkeeping requirements to the OMB for approval.
        G. Environmental Assessment
        This proposed rule will improve emergency response to hazardous materials incidents involving aircraft by ensuring information on the hazardous materials involved in an emergency is readily available. By improving emergency response to aircraft incidents, this proposed rule should help lessen environmental damage associated with such incidents. We find there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this proposed rule.
        H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 175
          Air carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Chapter I would be amended as follows:

          PART 175—CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT
          1. The authority citation for part 175 would continue to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.

          2. In § 175.33, paragraph (a)(1) introductory text would be revised, paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8) would be redesignated as paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9), respectively, and new paragraphs (a)(7) and (c) would be added to read as follows:

            § 175.33
            Notification of pilot-in-command.
            (a) * * *
            (1) The proper shipping name, hazard class, and identification number of the material, including any remaining aboard from prior stops, as specified in § 172.101 of this subchapter or the ICAO Technical Instructions. In the case of Class 1 materials, the compatibility group letter also must be shown. If a hazardous material is described by the proper shipping name, hazard class, and identification number appearing in:

            (7) The telephone number of a person not aboard the aircraft from whom the information contained in the notification of pilot-in-command can be obtained. The aircraft operator must ensure the telephone number is monitored at all times the aircraft is in flight.

            (c) The aircraft operator must retain, for one year from the date of the flight, a copy, or an electronic image thereof, of each notification of pilot-in-command and make it accessible at or through the operator's principal place of business. A copy of the notification of pilot-in-command, or the information contained in it, must be retained and be readily accessible at the airport of departure until the flight is completed and must be readily accessible at the planned airport of arrival until the flight is completed. The aircraft operator must make the notification of pilot-in-command immediately available, upon request, to any representative (including any emergency responder) of a Federal, State, or local government agency. Each notification of pilot-in-command must include the date of the flight.

            Issued in Washington, DC on February 7, 2002, under the authority delegated in 49 CFR part 106.
            Robert A. McGuire,
            Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.

      [FR Doc. 02-3458 Filed 2-12-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 519 and 552
        [GSAR Case 2006-G501; Docket 2008-0007; Sequence 2]
        RIN 3090-AI56
        General Services Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Case 2006-G501; GSA Mentor-Protégé Program

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to establish a GSA Mentor-Protégé Program. The GSA Mentor-Protégé Program is designed to encourage GSA prime contractors to assist small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and HUBZone small businesses in enhancing their capabilities to perform GSA contracts and subcontracts, foster the establishment of long-term business relationships between these small business entities and GSA prime contractors, and increase the overall number of small business entities that receive GSA contract and subcontract awards.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before August 11, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2006-G501 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “GSAR Case 2006-G501” under the heading “Comment or Submission”. Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with GSAR Case 2006-G501. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form”. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “GSAR Case 2006-G501” on your attached document.
          • Fax: 202-501-4067.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite GSAR Case 2006-G501 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
          For clarification of content, contact Ms. Rhonda Cundiff at (202) 501-0044. For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Room 4041, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2006-G501.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        This proposed rule amends the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) by adding a new Subpart, 519.70, GSA Mentor-Protégé Program, which outlines the Agency's Mentor-Protégé Program.
        Associated contract clauses are added at 552.219-75, GSA Mentor-Protégé Program, and 552.219-76, Mentor Requirements and Evaluation. GSA strongly supports increasing opportunities for small business concerns, recognizing the continuing need to develop the capabilities of small business, small disadvantaged business, HUBZone small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and women-owned small businesses to perform contracts and subcontracts for GSA.
        This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The changes may have a 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., because the rule will provide an opportunity for small business concerns to become protégés and receive developmental assistance from GSA prime contractors under GSA contracts. The GSA Mentor-Protégé Program is intended to provide subcontracting opportunities for protégés to gain valuable experience and knowledge about Federal Government contracting.
        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been prepared. The analysis is summarized as follows:

          This proposed rule establishes a GSA Mentor-Protégé Program to encourage GSA prime contractors to assist small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and HUBZone small businesses in enhancing their capabilities to perform GSA contracts and subcontracts, foster the establishment of long-term business relationships between these small business entities and GSA prime contractors, and increase the overall number of small business entities that receive GSA contract and subcontract awards.
          In accordance with the Small Business Act, it is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to these small business concerns and allow them to have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate as subcontractors in the contracts awarded by any executive agency, consistent with efficient contract performance. The General Services Administration Mentor-Protégé Program is designed to assist in this policy by encouraging GSA prime contractors to assist small businesses in enhancing their capabilities to perform contracts and subcontracts.
          The entities to which this rulemaking would apply are small business protégés. It is estimated that there will be approximately 150 small business concerns impacted by this rule. The protégés (small businesses) will be completing the Agreement with the mentor. In addition, the protégés may complete voluntary reports pertaining to the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program.

        The Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. GSA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected GSAR parts 519 and 552 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Comments must be submitted separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (GSAR Case 2006-G501), in all correspondence.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) applies because the proposed rule contains information collection requirements. Accordingly, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning 3090-00XX, GSAR Case 2006-G501, GSA Mentor-Protégé Program, to the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

          Annual Reporting Burden:

        Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
        The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:

          Respondents: 300.

          Responses per respondent: 4.

          Total annual responses: 1200.

          Preparation hours per response: 3.

          Total response burden hours: 3600.
        D. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden
        Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than August 11, 2008 to: GSAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405.
        Public comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the GSAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
        Requester may obtain a copy of the justification from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 3090-XXXX, GSAR Case 2006-G501, The GSA Mentor-Protégé Program, in all correspondence.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 519 and 552
          Government procurement.

          Dated: June 3, 2008.
          Al Matera,
          Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.

        Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 519 and 552 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 519 and 552 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           40 U.S.C. 121(c).

          PART 519—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

        2. Add Subpart 519.70 to read as follows:

          Sec.
          519.7001
          Scope of subpart.
          519.7002
          Definitions.
          519.7003
          General policy.
          519.7004
          Incentives for prime contractor participation.
          519.7005
          Measurement of program success.
          519.7006
          Mentor firms.
          519.7007
          Protégé firms.
          519.7008
          Selection of protégé firms.
          519.7009
          Application process for mentor firms to participate in the Program.
          519.7010
          Application review and mentor-protégé Agreement process.
          519.7011
          Agreement contents.
          519.7012
          Developmental assistance.
          519.7013
          Obligation.
          519.7014
          Internal controls.
          519.7015
          Reports.
          519.7016
          Program review.
          519.7017
          Contract clauses.

          Subpart 519.70—GSA Mentor-Protégé Program

          519.7001
           Scope of subpart.

        The GSA Mentor-Protégé Program is designed to encourage and motivate GSA prime contractors to assist small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and HUBZone small businesses, and enhance their capabilities to perform GSA contracts and subcontracts, foster the establishment of long-term business relationships between these small business entities and GSA prime contractors, and increase the overall number of small business entities that receive GSA contract and subcontract awards.

          519.7002
           Definitions.

        The definitions of small business concern, small disadvantaged business concern, HUBZone small business concern, women-owned small business concern, veteran-owned small business concern, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern are the same as found in FAR 2.101. (Also, see 13 CFR Parts 121, 124, 125 and 126 of the Small Business Administration Regulation.)
        (a) Mentor as used in the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program is a prime contractor that elects, on a specific GSA contract, to promote and develop small business subcontractors by providing developmental assistance designed to enhance the business success of the protégé.
        (b) Mentor-Protégé Program Manager means the head of the Office of Small Business Utilization (OSBU (E)).
        (c) Protégé as used in the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program is a small business who is the recipient of developmental assistance pursuant to a mentor-protégé arrangement on a specific contract.

          519.7003
           General policy.

        (a) A large business prime contractor which meets the requirements at 519.7006 and is approved as a mentor firm by the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager may enter into an Agreement with a small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, veteran-owned small business and HUBZone small business which meets the requirements for being a protégé (see 519.7007) to provide appropriate developmental assistance to enhance the capabilities of the protégé to perform as a subcontractor and supplier.
        (b) A small business prime contractor which is capable of providing developmental assistance to protégés, may also be approved as a mentor.
        (c) An active mentor-protégé arrangement requires the Protégé to be a subcontractor under the mentor's prime contract with GSA.
        (d) A firm's status as a protégé under a GSA contract shall not have an effect on the firm's ability to seek other prime contracts or subcontracts.
        (e) Mentors may join the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program at any time as long as they meet the requirements at 519.7006.

          519.7004
           Incentives for prime contractor participation.

        (a) Under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(E), the GSA is authorized to provide appropriate incentives to encourage subcontracting opportunities for small business consistent with the efficient and economical performance of the contract. This authority is limited to negotiated procurements.

        (b) Costs incurred by a mentor to provide developmental assistance, as described in 519.7012 to fulfill the terms of their agreement(s) with a protégé firm(s), are not reimbursable as a direct cost under a GSA contract. If GSA is the mentor's responsible audit agency under FAR 42.703-1, GSA will consider these costs in determining indirect cost rates. If GSA is not the responsible audit agency, mentors are encouraged to enter into an advance Agreement with their responsible audit agency on the treatment of such costs when determining indirect cost rates.
        (c) In addition to paragraph (b) of this section, contracting officers may give mentors evaluation credit under FAR 15.101-1 considerations for subcontracts awarded pursuant to their Mentor-Protégé Agreements and their subcontracting plans. Therefore—
        (1) Contracting officers may evaluate subcontracting plans containing Mentor-Protégé Agreements more favorably than subcontracting plans without Mentor-Protégé Agreements; and
        (2) Contracting officers may assess the prime contractor's compliance with the subcontracting plans submitted in previous contracts as a factor in evaluating past performance under certain circumstances (see FAR 15.304(b)(3), and 15.305(a)(2)(v)), and determining contractor responsibility 19.705-5(a)(1).
        (d) OSBU Mentoring Award. A non-monetary award may be presented annually to the mentoring firm providing the most effective developmental support of a protégé. The Mentor-Protégé Program Manager will recommend an award winner to the GSA Administrator.
        (e) OSBU Mentor-Protégé Annual Conference. At the conclusion of each year in the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program, mentor firms will be invited to brief contracting officers, program leaders, office directors, and other guests on Program progress. Participation is voluntary.

          519.7005
           Measurement of program success.

        The overall success of the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program encompassing all participating mentors and protégés will be measured by the extent to which it results in—
        (a) An increase in the number, dollar value and percentage of subcontracts awarded to protégés by mentor firms under GSA contracts since the date of entry into the Program;
        (b) An increase in the number and dollar value of contract and subcontract awards to protégé firms since the time of their entry into the Program (under GSA contracts, contracts awarded by other Federal agencies, and under commercial contracts);
        (c) An increase in the number and dollar value of subcontracts awarded to a protégé firm by its mentor firm; and
        (d) An increase in subcontracting with protégé firms in industry categories where they have not traditionally participated within the mentor firm's activity.

          519.7006
           Mentor firms.

        (a) Mentors must be—
        (1) A large business prime contractor that is currently, or has performed under at least one approved subcontracting plan awarded under a negotiated contract within the last five years, as required by FAR Subpart 19.7; Small business mentors are exempted; or
        (2) A small business prime contractor that can provide developmental assistance to enhance the capabilities of protégés to perform as subcontractors and suppliers;
        (b) Must be eligible (not listed in the “Excluded Parties List System”) for U.S. Government contracts and not excluded from the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program under 519.7014(b);
        (c) Must be able to provide developmental assistance that will enhance the ability of protégé to perform as subcontractors; and
        (d) Must provide semi-annual reports detailing the assistance provided and the cost incurred in supporting protégés.

          519.7007
           Protégé firms.

        (a) For selection as a protégé, a firm must be—
        (1) A small business concern, small disadvantaged business concern, veteran-owned small business concern, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern, HUBZone small business concern, or women-owned small business concern;
        (2) Small for the NAICS code the prime contractor/mentor assigns to the subcontract; and
        (3) Eligible (not listed in the “Excluded Parties List System”) for U.S. Government contracts and not excluded from the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program under 519.7014(b);
        (b) A protégé firm may self-represent to a mentor firm that it meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. Mentors may check the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at www.ccr.gov to verify the self-representations of the potential protégés that they meet the specified small business and socioeconomic category eligibility requirements (see 19.703(b) and (d)). HUBZone and small disadvantaged business status eligibility and documentation requirements are determined according to 13 CFR parts 124 and 126.
        (c) A protégé firm must not have another formal, active mentor-protégé relationship under GSA's Mentor-Protégé Program but may have an active mentor-protégé relationship in another agency's program.

          519.7008
           Selection of protégé firms.

        (a) Mentor firms will be solely responsible for selecting protégé firms. Mentors are encouraged to select from a broad base of small business including small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, and HUBZone small business.
        (b) Mentor firms may have more than one protégé.
        (c) The selection of protégé firms by mentor firms may not be protested, except for a protest regarding the size or eligibility status of an entity selected by a mentor to be a protégé. Such protests shall be handled in accordance with FAR 19.703(b). The contracting officer shall notify the Office of Small Business Utilization (OSBU) of the protest.

          519.7009
           Application process for mentor firms to participate in the Program.

        (a) Prime contractors interested in becoming a mentor firm must submit a request to be approved under the Program to the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager, at GSA Office of Small Business Utilization (E), Washington, DC 20405. The Application will be evaluated on the extent to which the company plans to provide developmental assistance.
        (b) The request must contain—
        (1) A statement that the mentor firm is currently performing under at least one active approved subcontracting plan (small business exempted) and that they are eligible, as of the date of Application, for the award of Federal contracts;
        (2) The number of proposed protégé arrangements;
        (3) Data on all current GSA contracts, and subcontracts to include the contract/subcontract number(s), type of contract(s), period of performance (including options), contract/subcontract value(s) including options, technical Program effort(s) (Program title), name of GSA Project Manager or Contracting Officer's Representative (including contact information), name of contracting officer(s)and contact information, and awarding GSA installation;
        (4) Data on total number and dollar value of subcontracts awarded under GSA prime contracts within the past 2 years and the number and dollar value of such subcontracts awarded to entities who are proposed protégés;

        (5) Information on the proposed types of developmental assistance. For each proposed mentor-protégé relationship include information on the company's ability to provide developmental assistance to the identified protégé firm and how that assistance will potentially increase subcontracting opportunities for the protégé firm, including subcontracting opportunities in industry categories where these entities are not dominant in the company's current subcontractor base; and
        (6) A Letter of Intent signed by both parties. At a minimum, the Letter of Intent must include the stated commitment that the parties intend to enter into a mentor-protégé Agreement under the GSA Program, that they intend to cooperate in the establishment of a suitable developmental assistance Program to meet their respective needs, and that they agree to comply with the obligations in 519.7013 and all other applicable provisions governing the Program.

          519.7010
           Application review and mentor-protégé Agreement process.

        (a)(1) Application process. The information specified in 519.7009(b) is reviewed by the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager. This review will be completed no later than 30 days after receipt by the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager OSBU. The Mentor-Protégé Program Manager will provide a copy of the submitted information to the contracting officer and if applicable the cognizant GSA technical Program Manager for a parallel review and concurrence.
        (2) If the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager approves the Application, then the mentor—
        (i) Negotiates a mentor-protégé Agreement with the protégé; and
        (ii) Submits an original and two (2) copies of the Agreement to the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager for approval.
        (3) If Mentor-Protégé Program Manager disapproves the application, then the mentor may provide additional information for reconsideration. The review of any supplemental material will be completed within 30 days after receipt by the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager. Upon finding deficiencies that GSA considers correctable, the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager will notify the mentor and request information to be provided within 30 days that may correct the deficiencies.
        (b) The Mentor-Protégé Program Manager will provide a copy of the Agreement to the contracting officer, and if applicable the cognizant GSA technical Program Manager, for a parallel review and concurrence. The Mentor-Protégé Program Manager, the GSA technical Program Manager, and the contracting officer must approve or disapprove the Agreement within 60 days.
        (c) Upon notification by the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager that all the GSA parties have approved the Agreement, the mentor may implement a developmental assistance Program.
        (d) The contracting officer will incorporate an approved Agreement into the mentor's contract(s) with GSA. It should be added to the subcontracting plan.

          519.7011
           Agreement contents.

        The contents of the Agreement must contain—
        (a) Names, addresses (including facsimile, e-mail, and homepage) and telephone numbers of mentor and protégé firms and the name, telephone number, and position title within both firms of the person who will oversee the Agreement;
        (b) An eligibility statement from the protégé stating that it is a small business, its primary NAICs code, and when applicable the type of small business (small disadvantaged business concern, HUBZone small business concern, women-owned small business concern, veteran-owned small business concern, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern);
        (c) A description of the type of developmental Program that will be provided by the mentor firm to the protégé firm (see 519.7012);
        (d) Milestones for providing the identified developmental assistance;
        (e) Factors to assess the protégé firms developmental progress under the Program;
        (f) The anticipated dollar value and type of subcontracts that may be awarded to the protégé firm consistent with the extent and nature of mentor firm's business, and the period of time over which they may be awarded;
        (g) Program participation term. State the period of time over which the developmental assistance will be performed;
        (h) Mentor termination procedures. Describe the procedures for the mentor firm to notify the Protégé firm, in writing, at least 30 days in advance of the mentor firm's intent to voluntarily withdraw its participation in the Program, or to terminate the Agreement;
        (i) Protégé Termination From the Program. Describe the procedures for a protégé firm to notify the mentor firm, in writing, at least 30 days in advance of the protégé firm's intent to terminate the mentor-protégé Agreement;
        (j) Plan for accomplishing contract work should the Mentor-Protégé Agreement be terminated or a party excluded under 519.7014(b). The mentor prime's contract with GSA continues even if the Mentor-Protégé Agreement or the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program is discontinued;
        (k) The protégé must agree to provide input into the mentor firm's semi-annual reports (see 519.7015). The protégé must submit a “lessons learned” evaluation along with the mentor firm at the conclusion of the Mentor-Protégé agreement; and
        (l) Other terms and conditions, as appropriate.

          519.7012
           Developmental assistance.

        The forms of developmental assistance a mentor can provide to a protégé include—
        (a) Management guidance relating to—
        (1) Financial management;
        (2) Organizational management;
        (3) Overall business management/planning; and
        (4) Business development;
        (b) Engineering and other technical assistance;
        (c) Loans;
        (d) Rent-free use of facilities and/or equipment;
        (e) Temporary assignment of personnel to the protégé for purpose of training;
        (f) Subcontracts awarded to protégé firms under this Program are exempt from competition requirements, notwithstanding 52.244-5. However, price reasonableness should still be determined; or
        (g) Any other types of permissible, mutually beneficial assistance.

          519.7013
           Obligation.

        (a) The mentor or protégé may terminate the Agreement in accordance with 519.7011. The mentor will notify the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager and the contracting officer, in writing, at least 30 days in advance of the mentor firm's intent to voluntarily withdraw from the Program or to terminate the Agreement, or upon receipt of a protégé’s notice to withdraw from the Program.
        (b) Mentor and protégé firms will submit a “lessons learned” evaluation to the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager at the conclusion of each Mentor-Protégé Agreement.

          519.7014
           Internal controls.

        (a) The GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager will manage the Program. Internal controls will be established by the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager to achieve the stated Program objectives (by serving as checks and balances against undesired actions or consequences) such as the following:
        (1) Reviewing and evaluating mentor Applications for realism, validity and accuracy of provided information.
        (2) Reviewing any semi-annual progress reports submitted by mentors and protégés on protégé development to measure protégé progress against the master plan contained in the approved Agreement.
        (b) GSA has the authority to exclude mentor or protégé firms from participating in the GSA Program.
        (1) The contracting officer or technical Program Manager can recommend exclusion and the length of exclusion from the Program. These actions shall be approved by the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager.
        (2) If GSA has good cause to exclude a mentor or a protégé from the Program, the GSA Office of Small Business Utilization will deliver to the contractor a Notice specifying the reason for Program exclusion and the effective date.
        (3) The exclusion from the Program does not constitute a termination of the subcontract between the mentor and the protégé.

          519.7015
           Reports.

        (a) Semi-annual reports shall be submitted by the mentor to the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager to include information as outlined in 552.219-76(c).
        (b) Protégés must agree to provide input into the mentor firm's semi-annual reports detailing the assistance provided and goals achieved since agreement inception. However, for cost reimbursable contracts, costs associated with the preparation of these reports are unallowable costs under these Government contracts and will not be reimbursed by the Government.
        (c) The GSA contracting officer, or if applicable the technical Program Manager, shall include an assessment of the prime contractor's (mentor's) performance in the Mentor-Protégé Program in a quarterly ‘Strengths and Weaknesses’ evaluation report. A copy of this assessment will be provided to the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager and to the mentor and protégé.

          519.7016
           Program review.

        At the conclusion of each year in the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program (anniversary date of the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program), the prime contractor and protégé, as appropriate, will formally brief the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager, the technical Program Manager, and the contracting officer regarding Mentor-Protégé Program accomplishments pertaining to the approved Agreement.

          519.7017
           Contract clauses.

        (a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 552.219-75, GSA Mentor-Protégé Program, in all unrestricted solicitations and contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
        (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 552.219-76, Mentor Requirements and Evaluation, in contracts anticipated to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

          PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        3. Add sections 552.219-XX and 552.219-YY to read as follows:

          552.219-XX
           GSA Mentor-Protégé Program.

        As prescribed in 519.7017(a), insert the following clause:

          GSA Mentor-Protégé Program (DATE)

        (a) Prime Contractors, including small businesses, are encouraged to participate in the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program for the purpose of providing developmental assistance to eligible protégé entities to enhance their capabilities and increase their participation in GSA contracts.
        (b) The Program consists of—
        (1) Mentor firms, which are large prime Contractors with at least one active subcontracting plan, or which are eligible small businesses;
        (2) Protégés, which are subcontractors to the prime Contractor, include small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns meeting the qualifications specified in Subpart 519.70; and
        (3) Mentor-protégé Applications and Agreements, approved by the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager in the GSA Office of Small Business Utilization (OSBU).
        (c) Mentor participation in the Program means providing technical, managerial and financial assistance to aid protégés in developing requisite high-tech expertise and business systems to compete for and successfully perform GSA contracts and subcontracts.
        (d) Contractors interested in participating in the Program are encouraged to read GSAR Subpart 19.7 and to contact the GSA Office of Small Business Utilization (E), Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-1021, for further information.
        (End of clause)

          552.219-YY
           Mentor Requirements and Evaluation.

        As prescribed in 519.7017(b), insert the following clause:

          Mentor Requirements and Evaluation (DATE)

        (a) The purpose of the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program is for a GSA prime Contractor to provide developmental assistance to certain subcontractors qualifying as protégés. Eligible protégés include small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns meeting the qualifications specified in 519.7007. The Program requires an Application process and an Agreement between the mentor and the protégé. See GSAR Subpart 519.70 for more information.
        (b) GSA will evaluate a GSA mentor's performance on the following factors:
        (1) Specific actions taken by the Contractor, during the evaluation period, to increase the participation of its protégé as a subcontractor and supplier.
        (2) Specific actions taken by the Contractor during this evaluation period to develop the technical and corporate administrative expertise of its protégé as defined in the Agreement.
        (3) To what extent the protégé has met the developmental objectives in the Agreement.
        (4) To what extent the firm's participation in the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program resulted in the protégé receiving competitive contract(s) and subcontract(s) from private firms other than the mentor, and from agencies.
        (c) Semi-annual reports shall be submitted by a GSA the mentor to the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager, GSA Office of Small Business Utilization (E), Washington, DC 20405. The reports must include information as outlined in paragraph (b) of this clause.
        (d) A GSA mentor will notify the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager and the Contracting Officer, in writing, at least 30 days in advance of the mentor firm's intent to voluntarily withdraw from the GSA Program or terminate the Agreement, or upon receipt of a protégé’s notice to withdraw from the Program.

        (e) GSA mentor and protégé firms will submit a “lessons learned” evaluation to the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager at the conclusion of the Mentor-Protégé Agreement. At the end of each year in the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program, the mentor and protégé, as appropriate, will formally brief the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager, the technical Program Manager, and the Contracting Officer during a formal Program review regarding Program accomplishments as pertains to the approved Agreement.
        (f) GSA has the authority to exclude mentor or protégé firms from participating in the GSA Program. The Contracting Officer or technical Program Manager can recommend exclusion and the length of exclusion from the Program. These actions shall be approved by the GSA Mentor-Protégé Program Manager. If GSA has good cause to exclude a mentor or a protégé from the Program, the GSA Office of Small Business Utilization will deliver to the Contractor a Notice specifying the reason for Program exclusion and the effective date. The exclusion from the Program does not constitute a termination of the subcontract between the mentor and the protégé. A plan for accomplishing the subcontract effort should the Agreement be terminated shall be submitted with the Agreement as required in 519.7011(j).
        (g) Subcontracts awarded to GSA protégé firms under this Program are exempt from competition requirements, notwithstanding 52.244-5. However, price reasonableness should still be determined.
        (End of clause)

      [FR Doc. E8-12923 Filed 6-9-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-61-S