Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53977 

B. What Is the Regulatory History of the 

Nevada SIP? 

The State of Nevada first submitted an 

applicable SIP in January 1972, portions 

of which EPA approved pursuant to 

CAA § 110(c) on May 31, 1972 at 37 FR 

10842. The SIP included various 

sections of the NAC and the Nevada 

Revised Statutes. Nevada subsequently 

adopted and submitted many revisions 

to these requirements, some of which 

EPA approved on January 9, 1978 at 43 

FR 1342, July 10, 1980 at 45 FR 46284, 

August 27, 1981 at 46 FR 43142, and 

June 18, 1982 at 47 FR 26387. Since 

1982, EPA has approved very few 

revisions to Nevada’s applicable SIP 

despite numerous changes that have 

been adopted locally. 

C. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed 

Rule? 

The purpose of this proposal is to 

bring the applicable SIP up to date. The 

regulations we are proposing to approve 

today address a few of the provisions 

contained in the February 2005 

submittal concerning definitions, sulfur 

emission controls, and various burning 

regulations. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the 

Regulations? 

Generally, SIP regulations in 

attainment areas must be enforceable 

(see section 110(a) of the Act) and must 

not relax existing requirements (see 

sections 110(l) and 193). Guidance and 

policy documents that we used to help 

evaluate enforceability include the 

following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

B. Do the Regulations Meet the 

Evaluation Criteria? 

We believe these regulations are 

consistent with the relevant policy and 

guidance regarding enforceability and 

SIP relaxations. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Final Action. 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

regulations fulfill all relevant 

requirements, we are proposing to fully 

approve them as described in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we 

receive convincing new information 

during the comment period, we intend 

to publish a final approval action that 

will incorporate these regulations into 

the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxide. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 31, 2005. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 05–18092 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

48 CFR Part 9904 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy; 

Cost Accounting Standards Board; 

CAS Exemption for Contracts 

Executed and Performed Entirely 

Outside the United States, Its 

Territories, and Possessions 

AGENCY: Cost Accounting Standards 

Board, Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy, OMB. 

ACTION: Staff Discussion Paper (SDP); 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Cost Accounting 

Standards (CAS) Board, Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy, invites 

public comments on the staff discussion 

paper regarding a provision that 

provides an exemption from CAS for 

contracts that are executed and 

performed entirely outside the United 

States, its territories, and possessions. 

DATES: Comments must be in writing 

and must be received by November 14, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Due to delays in OMB’s 

receipt and processing of mail, 

53978 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

respondents are strongly encouraged to 

submit comments electronically to 

ensure timely receipt. Electronic 

comments may be submitted to 

casb2@omb.eop.gov. Please put the full 

body of your comments in the text of the 

electronic message and also as an 

attachment readable in either MS Word 

or Corel WordPerfect. Please include 

your name, title, organization, postal 

address, telephone number, and e-mail 

address in the text of the message. 

Comments may also be submitted via 

facsimile to (202) 395–5105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Capitano, Cost Accounting 

Standards Board (telephone: 703–847–

7486). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Regulatory Process 

The Board’s rules, regulations and 

Standards are codified at 48 CFR 

Chapter 99. The Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 

422(g)(1), requires the Board, prior to 

the establishment of any new or revised 

Cost Accounting Standard (CAS), to 

complete a prescribed rulemaking 

process. The process generally consists 

of the following four steps: 

1. Consult with interested persons 

concerning the advantages, 

disadvantages and improvements 

anticipated in the pricing and 

administration of government contracts 

as a result of the adoption of a proposed 

Standard (e.g., promulgation of a Staff 

Discussion Paper.) 

2. Promulgate an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). 

3. Promulgate a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM). 

4. Promulgate a Final Rule. 

This Staff Discussion Paper (SDP) is 

issued by the Board as step one of the 

four-step process. The Board notes that 

the exemption at 48 CFR 9903.201–

1(b)(14) is not subject to the four-step 

process required by 41 U.S.C. 422(g)(1) 

because it is not a standard. Thus, there 

is no requirement for the Board to 

follow the four-step process for this 

promulgation. Nevertheless, the Board 

believes following the four-step process 

is beneficial for this issue. However, the 

issuance of this SDP is not intended to 

establish any precedence for use of the 

four-step process in promulgating CAS 

rules and regulations other than 

standards. 

B. Background and Summary 

The Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy, Cost Accounting Standards 

Board, is releasing a SDP regarding the 

exemption at 48 CFR 9903.201–1(b)(14). 

The purpose of the SDP is to solicit 

public views with respect to the Board’s 

consideration of whether the exemption 

at 48 CFR 9903.201–1(b)(14) should be 

revised or eliminated. Respondents are 

encouraged to identify and comment on 

any issues not addressed in this SDP 

that they believe are important to the 

subject. This SDP reflects research 

accomplished to date by the staff of the 

Cost Accounting Standards Board in the 

respective subject area. 

C. Public Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate by submitting data, views or 

arguments with respect to this SDP, 

including but not limited to the 

questions listed in the SDP. All 

comments must be in writing or by Email, and submitted to the mailing or Email addresses indicated in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

David H. Safavian, 

Chair, Cost Accounting Standards Board. 

Cost Accounting Standards Board Staff 

Discussion Paper (SDP) 

48 CFR 9903.201–1(b)(14) 

Exemption for Contracts Entirely 

Executed and Performed Outside the 

United States 

Background 

Purpose 

48 CFR 9903.201–1(b) provides a list 

of categories of contracts and 

subcontracts that are exempt from all 

CAS requirements (CAS exemptions). 

Paragraph (14) of this provision 

provides an exemption for ‘‘Contracts 

and subcontracts to be executed and 

performed entirely outside the United 

States, its territories, and possessions.’’

The purpose of this SDP is to explore 

whether this exemption should be 

revised or eliminated. 

History of Exemption 

The original CAS Board (the Board) 

was established by Section 2168 of the 

Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA). 

Section 2163 of the DPA, entitled 

‘‘Territorial Application of Act,’’

provided that Sections 2061 through 

2170 of the act ‘‘shall be applicable to 

the United States, its territories and 

possessions, and the District of 

Columbia’’ (United States). Since the 

provisions of the DPA were applicable 

only within the United States, the CAS 

Board’s rules, regulations and standards 

were also applicable only within the 

United States. 

On May 29, 1973, Mr. Van Cleve, 

General Counsel to the CAS Board, 

wrote to Mr. Jack Kendig, DCAA, 

reiterating the Board’s lack of authority 

over contracts executed and performed 

entirely outside the United States. These 

comments were made during the CAS 

Board’s early deliberations of what 

contracts were, or were not, under its 

purview: 

‘‘As you are aware, the CASB has 

previously recognized that its authorizing 

legislation is a part of Defense Production 

Act and that pertinent provisions of that Act 

apply to the activities of the Board. We 

consider that the above provision [Section 

713 of the Act] does exclude from the Board’s 

jurisdiction any contracts which are executed 

and performed in their entirety outside of the 

United States, its territories and possessions. 

To the extent the Board has dealt with 

foreign contracts, it has been assumed that 

either the document was executed in the 

United States or that some part of 

performance occurred within the United 

States which would, of course, bring the 

contract within the scope of the Board’s 

authority.’’ [Reference added for clarification] 

On June 29, 1973, the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Procurement advised the CAS Board 

that based on Mr. Van Cleve’s May 29, 

1973 opinion, DOD was revising ASPR 

3–1204 (Contract Clauses) to add 

contracts and subcontracts executed and 

performed entirely outside the United 

States to the list of exclusions from 

CAS. On September 24, 1973, Defense 

Procurement Circular No. 115 amended 

ASPR 3–1204 to provide for this CAS 

exclusion. As amended, ASPR 3–1204 

read as follows: 

3–1204 Contract Clause. The Cost 

Accounting Standards clause set forth in 7–

104.83 shall be inserted in all negotiated 

contracts exceeding $100,000, except when 

the price is based on established catalog or 

market prices of commercial items sold in 

substantial quantities to the general public or 

is set by law or regulation. In addition to the 

foregoing exceptions, the clause shall not be 

included in the following contracts: 

* * * * * 

(vi) contracts which are executed and 

performed in their entirety outside the 

United States, its territories and possessions. 

In 1980, the CAS Board ceased to 

exist under the DPA. CAS 

administration was undertaken by the 

Department of Defense until the CAS 

Board was re-established in 1988 under 

the Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy (OFPP) Act. 

In 1991, the new CAS Board decided 

to review the exemption from CAS for 

contracts and subcontracts executed and 

performed entirely outside the United 

States, its territories and possessions at 

FAR 30.201–1(14). The exemption was 

retained and incorporated in the current 

CAS Board’s recodified rules and 

regulations at 48 CFR 9903.201–1(b)(14) 

on April 17, 1992 (57 FR 14148). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53979 

Key Questions for Consideration 

The CAS Board is soliciting 

comments on this issue from interested 

parties. In particular, the Board is 

interested in comments related to the 

following issues: 

1. Any statute that would require the 

CAS Board to retain this exemption. If 

any such statute exists, provide the 

specific statute and language that 

contain this requirement. 

2. How this exemption does or does 

not promote the CAS Board’s primary 

objective of achieving ‘‘(1) an increased 

degree of uniformity in cost accounting 

practices among Government 

contractors in like circumstances, and 

(2) consistency in cost accounting 

practices in like circumstances by 

individual government contractor over 

periods of time.’’

3. The significance of the location of 

contract execution to CAS applicability. 

4. The significance of the location of 

contract performance to CAS 

applicability. 

5. The advantages and disadvantages 

of exempting contracts and subcontracts 

from CAS that are executed and 

performed entirely outside the U.S. 

6. Contracting situations in which the 

exemption has historically been 

utilized. 

[FR Doc. 05–17949 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 600 and 622 

[Docket No. 050729208–5208–01; I.D. 

060805B] 

RIN 0648–AP51 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; 

Comprehensive Amendment to the 

Fishery Management Plans of the U.S. 

Caribbean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed 

rule to implement a comprehensive 

amendment prepared by the Caribbean 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

to amend its Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, 

Queen Conch, and Coral Fishery 

Management Plans (FMPs). The 

comprehensive amendment is designed 

to ensure the FMPs are fully compliant 

with the provisions of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). This proposed rule would redefine 

the fishery management units for the 

FMPs; establish seasonal closures; 

impose gear restrictions and 

requirements; revise requirements for 

marking pots and traps; and prohibit the 

filleting of fish at sea. In addition, the 

comprehensive amendment would 

establish biological reference points and 

stock status criteria; establish rebuilding 

schedules and strategies to end 

overfishing and rebuild overfished 

stocks; provide for standardized 

collection of bycatch data; minimize 

bycatch and bycatch mortality to the 

extent practicable; designate essential 

fish habitat (EFH) and EFH habitat areas 

of particular concern (HAPCs); and 

minimize adverse impacts on such 

habitat to the extent practicable. The 

intended effect of this proposed rule is 

to achieve optimum yield in the 

fisheries and provide social and 

economic benefits associated with 

maintaining healthy stocks. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on 

September 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule by any of the 

following methods: 

• E-mail: 0648–

AP51.Proposed@noaa.gov. Include in 

the subject line of the e-mail comment 

the following document identifier 0648–

AP51. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Steve Branstetter, NMFS, 

Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

• Fax: 727–824–5308, Attention: Steve 

Branstetter. 

Copies of documents supporting this 

action may be obtained by contacting 

the NMFS Southeast Regional Office at 

the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Branstetter, 727–824–5305; fax 

727–824–5308; e-mail 

Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

fisheries for spiny lobster, queen conch, 

reef fish, and corals and reef-associated 

invertebrates in the exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ) off Puerto Rico and of the 

U.S. Virgin Islands are managed under 

the respective fishery management 

plans prepared by the Council. These 

fishery management plans are 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 

50 CFR part 622. This proposed rule 

would implement Amendment 2 to the 

FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery, 

Amendment 1 to the FMP for Queen 

Conch Resources, Amendment 3 to the 

FMP for the Reef Fish Fishery, and 

Amendment 2 to the FMP for the Corals 

and Reef Associated Plants and 

Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, known collectively as 

the Comprehensive Amendment to the 

FMPs of the Caribbean. 

Background 

A notice of availability for the 

comprehensive amendment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 16, 2005 (70 FR 35053). This 

proposed rule and the comprehensive 

amendment are intended to address 

various requirements set forth in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act: (1) Assess and 

specify the present and probable future 

condition of, and the maximum 

sustainable yield and optimum yield 

from, fisheries; (2) specify objective and 

measurable criteria for identifying when 

a fishery is overfished; (3) end 

overfishing and rebuild overfished 

stocks, and prevent overfishing in 

fisheries that are identified as 

approaching an overfished condition; 

(4) establish a standardized reporting 

methodology to assess the amount and 

type of bycatch occurring in the fishery 

and implement conservation and 

management measures that minimize 

bycatch and bycatch mortality to the 

extent practicable; and (5) identify, 

describe, and designate EFH and EFHHAPCs for managed stocks, minimize to 

the extent practicable adverse effects on 

such habitat caused by fishing, and 

identify other actions to encourage the 

conservation and enhancement of such 

habitat. 

Provisions of This Proposed Rule 

Revision of Fishery Management Units 

(FMUs) 

This proposed rule would redefine 

the FMUs in all the Council FMPs. 

FMUs define the specific species that 

are to be the target of conservation and 

management. 

The proposed rule would remove 

from the respective FMUs, species 

found predominantly in the waters of 

Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands 

(rather than in Federal waters). In 

addition, those species for which data 

are inadequate to establish a need for 

conservation and management, 

biological reference points, or stock 

status determination criteria would 

remain in the FMUs for data collection 

purposes but would not be subject to 

Federal regulation at this time. When