Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 67923 

concurrence of the ACO, may initiate a 

special review of specific weaknesses in 

the contractor’s purchasing system. See 

PGI 244.304(b) for examples of 

weaknesses. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

252.244–7000 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 252.244–7000 is amended 

as follows: 

■ a. By revising the clause date to read 

‘‘(NOV 2005)’’; and 

■ b. In the introductory text of the 

clause by removing the phrase ‘‘and 

Commercial Components’’. 

[FR Doc. 05–22105 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Part 250 

[DFARS Case 2003–D048] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Extraordinary 

Contractual Actions 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to update text pertaining to the 

processing of requests for extraordinary 

contract adjustments. This rule is a 

result of a transformation initiative 

undertaken by DoD to dramatically 

change the purpose and content of the 

DFARS. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Euclides Barrera, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0296; 

facsimile (703) 602–0350. Please cite 

DFARS Case 2003–D048. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

DFARS Transformation is a major 

DoD initiative to dramatically change 

the purpose and content of the DFARS. 

The objective is to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of the 

acquisition process, while allowing the 

acquisition workforce the flexibility to 

innovate. The transformed DFARS will 

contain only requirements of law, DoDwide policies, delegations of FAR 

authorities, deviations from FAR 

requirements, and policies/procedures 

that have a significant effect beyond the 

internal operating procedures of DoD or 

a significant cost or administrative 

impact on contractors or offerors. 

Additional information on the DFARS 

Transformation initiative is available at 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/ 

dfars/transformation/index.htm. 

This final rule is a result of the 

DFARS Transformation initiative. The 

rule—

• Updates requirements for DoD 

processing of requests for extraordinary 

contract adjustments; and 

• Deletes procedures for preparation 

of records and submittal of requests to 

a contract adjustment board. This text 

has been relocated to the new DFARS 

companion resource, Procedures, 

Guidance, and Information (PGI), 

available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ 

dpap/dars/pgi. 

DoD published a proposed rule at 70 

FR 6393 on February 7, 2005. DoD 

received no comments on the proposed 

rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the 

proposed rule as a final rule without 

change. 

This rule was not subject to Office of 

Management and Budget review under 

Executive Order 12866, dated 

September 30, 1993. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD certifies that this final rule will 

not 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 relates primarily to 

DoD internal administrative procedures 

for the processing of requests for 

extraordinary contract adjustments. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the rule does not 

impose any information collection 

requirements that require the approval 

of the Office of Management and Budget 

under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 250 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Therefore, 48 CFR Part 250 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 250—EXTRAORDINARY 

CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

Part 250 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR 

Chapter 1. 

■ 2. Section 250.105 is revised to read 

as follows: 

250.105 Records. 

Follow the procedures at PGI 250.105 

for preparation of records. 

■ 3. Section 250.201–70 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and the last 

sentence of paragraph (b) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

250.201–70 Delegations. 

(a) Military Departments. The 

Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force will specify delegations and levels 

of authority for actions under the Act 

and the Executive Order in 

departmental supplements or agency 

acquisition guidance. 

(b) * * * The agency supplements or 

agency acquisition guidance shall 

specify the delegations and levels of 

authority. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Subpart 250.3 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Subpart 250.3—Contract Adjustments 

Sec. 

250.303–1 Contractor requests. 

250.305 Processing cases. 

250.306 Disposition. 

250.303–1 Contractor requests. 

Requests should be filed with the 

procuring contracting officer (PCO). 

However, if filing with the PCO is 

impractical, requests may be filed with 

an authorized representative, an 

administrative contracting officer, or the 

Office of General Counsel of the 

applicable department or agency, for 

forwarding to the cognizant PCO. 

250.305 Processing cases. 

(1) At the time the request is filed, the 

activity shall prepare the record 

described at PGI 250.105(1)(i) and 

forward it to the appropriate official 

within 30 days after the close of the 

month in which the record is prepared. 

(2) The officer or official responsible 

for the case shall forward to the contract 

adjustment board, through departmental 

channels, the documentation described 

at PGI 250.305. 

(3) Contract adjustment boards will 

render decisions as expeditiously as 

practicable. The Chair shall sign a 

memorandum of decision disposing of 

the case. The decision shall be dated 

and shall contain the information 

required by FAR 50.306. The 

memorandum of decision shall not 

contain any information classified 

‘‘Confidential’’ or higher. The board’s 

decision will be sent to the appropriate 

official for implementation. 

67924 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

250.306 Disposition. 

For requests denied or approved 

below the Secretarial level, follow the 

disposition procedures at PGI 250.306. 

[FR Doc. 05–22106 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Part 252 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Technical 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is making a technical 

amendment to the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement to 

update the Internet address for 

obtaining a list of processes accepted 

under the DoD Single Process Initiative 

(SPI). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Michele Peterson, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062. 

Telephone (703) 602–0311; facsimile 

(703) 602–0350. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 252 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR 

Chapter 1. 

■ 2. Section 252.211–7005 is amended 

by revising the clause date and the 

second sentence of paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

252.211–7005 Substitutions for Military or 

Federal Specifications and Standards. 

* * * * * 

SUBSTITUTIONS FOR MILITARY OR 

FEDERAL SPECIFICATIONS AND 

STANDARDS (NOV 2005) 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * A listing of SPI processes 

accepted at specific facilities is available 

via the Internet at http:// 

guidebook.dcma.mil/20/ 

guidebook_process.htm (paragraph 4.2). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–22112 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT78 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Final Determination 

Concerning Critical Habitat for the San 

Miguel Island Fox, Santa Rosa Island 

Fox, Santa Cruz Island Fox, and Santa 

Catalina Island Fox 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The San Miguel Island fox 

(Urocyon littoralis littoralis), Santa Rosa 

Island fox (U. l. santarosae), Santa Cruz 

Island fox (U. l. santacruzae), and Santa 

Catalina Island fox (U. l. catalinae) were 

listed as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), on March 5, 2004. We, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, do 

not find any habitat on the four islands 

occupied by the foxes that meets the 

definition of critical habitat under the 

Act. Because there is no habitat that 

meets the definition of critical habitat 

for these island fox subspecies, there is 

none to designate; therefore, we are not 

designating any critical habitat. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

December 9, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, will be available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 

Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 

93003. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa 

Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox, 

contact Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the 

above address, (telephone 805/644–

1766; facsimile 805/644–3958). For the 

Santa Catalina Island fox, contact Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley 

Road, Carlsbad, CA (telephone 760/431–

9440; facsimile 760/431–9624). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat in this 

rule. For more information on the four 

island fox subspecies, refer to the March 

5, 2004, final listing rule (69 FR 10335) 

and the October 7, 2004, proposed 

critical habitat rule (69 FR 60134). 

Previous Federal Actions 

For information on previous Federal 

actions concerning the four island fox 

subspecies, refer to the proposed critical 

habitat rule (69 FR 60134; October 7, 

2004). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for four island fox 

subspecies in the proposed rule (69 FR 

60134; October 7, 2004). We also 

contacted appropriate Federal, State, 

and local agencies; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposed rule. 

During the comment period that 

opened on October 7, 2004 and closed 

on December 6, 2004, we received three 

comments directly addressing the 

proposed critical habitat designation: 

two from peer reviewers and one from 

a member of the public. The State of 

California, where the islands on which 

these subspecies live are located, did 

not provide comments. The two peer 

reviewers who commented generally 

supported our proposal to not designate 

critical habitat for the island fox 

subspecies, although one thought 

additional research was needed. The 

other commenter opposed our proposal. 

Comments received are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule as appropriate. We 

did not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from five knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received responses from 

two of the peer reviewers. One of the 

peer reviewers agreed with our 

conclusion in the proposed rule that 

designating critical habitat would not 

confer additional benefits to the 

conservation of the four island fox 

subspecies. This peer reviewer’s 

extensive experience with the three