Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 220 / Thursday, November 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 64185 

additional supporting materials with 

their tariff filings. These proposals may 

impose additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on entities. 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

possible burden these requirements 

would place on small entities. Also, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

a special approach toward any possible 

compliance burdens on small entities 

might be appropriate. Entities, 

especially small businesses, are 

encouraged to quantify the costs and 

benefits of any reporting requirement 

that may be established in this 

proceeding. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

39. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

(among others) the following four 

alternatives: (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

40. The Commission’s primary 

objective is to develop a framework for 

ensuring that rates remain just and 

reasonable, as required by section 

201(b). The Commission seeks comment 

here on the effect the various proposals 

described in the Notice will have on 

small entities, and on what effect 

alternative rules would have on those 

entities. The Commission invites 

comment on ways in which the 

Commission can achieve its goal of 

protecting consumers while at the same 

time imposing minimal burdens on 

small entities. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

41. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

42. Accordingly, It is ordered, 

pursuant to Sections 4(i), 160, 201–204, 

and 254(g) of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

160, 201–204, and 254(g), that this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

adopted. 

43. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

44. It is further ordered that pursuant 

to applicable procedures set forth in 

Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on or before December 17, 

2007 and reply comments on or before 

December 31, 2007. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–22342 Filed 11–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 31 

[FAR Case 2006–021; Docket 2007–0001; 

Sequence 10] 

RIN: 9000–AK84 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR 

Case 2006–021, Post Retirement 

Benefits (PRB), FAS 106 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) are proposing to amend the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

permit the contractor to measure 

accrued PRB costs using either the 

criteria in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 

419 or the criteria in Financial 

Accounting Standard (FAS) 106. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the FAR 

Secretariat on or before January 14, 2008 

to be considered in the formulation of 

a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FAR case number 2006–

021 by any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• To search for any document, first 

select under ‘‘Step 1,’’ ‘‘Documents with 

an Open Comment Period’’ and select 

under ‘‘Optional Step 2,’’ ‘‘Federal 

Acquisition Regulation’’ as the agency 

of choice. Under ‘‘Optional Step 3,’’

select ‘‘Proposed Rules’’. Under 

‘‘Optional Step 4,’’ from the drop down 

list, select ‘‘Document Title’’ and type 

the FAR Case number ‘‘2006–021’’. 

Click the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Please 

include your name and company name 

(if any) inside the document. You may 

also search for any document by 

clicking on the ‘‘Search for Documents’’

tab at the top of the screen. Select from 

the agency field ‘‘Federal Acquisition 

Regulation’’, and type ‘‘2006–021’’ in 

the ‘‘Document Title’’ field. Select the 

‘‘Submit’’ button. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, 

ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, 

DC 20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR case 2006–021 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: 

Edward Chambers, Procurement 

Analyst, at (202) 501–3221, for 

clarification of content. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat 

at (202) 501–4755. Please cite FAR case 

2006–021. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

FAR 31.205–6(o) allows contractors to 

choose among three different accounting 

methods for PRB costs: cash basis, 

terminal funding, and accrual basis. 

When the accrual basis is used, the 

FAR currently requires that costs must 

be measured based on the requirements 

of FAS 106. 

However, the tax-deductible amount 

that is contributed to the retiree benefit 

trust is determined using IRC 419, 

which has different measurement 

criteria than FAS 106. As a result, the 

FAS 106 amount can often exceed the 

IRC 419 measured costs, and contractors 

that choose to accrue PRB costs for 

Government reimbursement face a 

dilemma: whether to fund the entire 

FAS 106 amount to obtain Government 

reimbursement of the costs, regardless 

of tax implications, or fund only the tax 

deductible amount and not be 

reimbursed for the entire FAS 106 

amount under their Government 

contracts. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
64186 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 220 / Thursday, November 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

The Councils are proposing to amend 

FAR 31.205–6(o) to alleviate this 

dilemma. This amendment would 

provide the contractor an option of 

measuring accrued PRB costs using 

criteria based on IRC 419 rather than 

FAS 106, thereby permitting the 

contractor to fund the entire tax 

deductible amount without having a 

portion disallowed because it did not 

meet the FAR’s current measurement 

criteria. The Councils note that this 

amendment will not change the total 

measured PRB costs, i.e., the total 

measured PRB costs over the life of the 

PRB plan would be the same whether 

the contractor chose to apply the criteria 

in FAS 106 or IRC 419. 

The Councils note that the proposed 

rule may result in the Government 

paying higher PRB costs, since under 

the current rule some contractors may 

have chosen to fund the IRC amount 

rather than the full FAS amount in 

current and future accounting periods. 

Absent this proposed revision, the 

resulting difference will be an 

unallowable cost. However, the 

Councils are unable to estimate the 

specific cost impact because the number 

of contractors who may choose to use 

the proposed IRC 419 measurement 

option is unknown. Moreover, the 

Councils further note that there may be 

a cost impact if the rule remains 

unchanged. For example, in lieu of 

funding the lower IRC amount, 

contractors could decide to fund the full 

FAS amount (and forego the tax benefit), 

change from accrual to pay-as-you go 

accounting, or terminate their PRB plans 

rather than fund amounts that are not 

tax deductible. 

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 Councils do not expect this 

proposed rule to 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 most 

small entities do not accrue PRB costs 

for Government contract costing 

purposes. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

apply; however, these changes to the 

FAR do not impose additional 

information collection requirements to 

the paperwork burden previously 

approved under OMB Control Number 

9000–0013. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 31 

Government procurement. 

Dated: October 24, 2007 

Al Matera, 

Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR part 31 as set 

forth below: 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 31 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 

PART 31—CONTRACT COST 

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

2. Amend section 31.205–6 by 

revising paragraphs (o)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) 

to read as follows: 

31.205–6 Compensation for personal 

services. 

* * * * * 

(o) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(A) Measured and assigned in 

accordance with—

(1) Generally accepted accounting 

principles. However, the portion of PRB 

costs attributable to the transition 

obligation assigned to the current year 

that is in excess of the amount 

assignable under the delayed 

recognition methodology described in 

paragraphs 112 and 113 of Financial 

Accounting Standards Board Statement 

106 is unallowable. The transition 

obligation is defined in Statement 106, 

paragraph 110; or 

(2) The costs shall—

(i) Be measured using reasonable 

actuarial assumptions, which may 

include a healthcare inflation 

assumption; 

(ii) Be assigned to accounting periods 

on the basis of the average future 

working lives of active employees 

covered by the PRB plan or a 15 year 

period, whichever period is longer; and 

(iii) Exclude Federal income taxes, 

whether incurred by the fund or the 

contractor (including those taxes 

associated with any increase in PRB 

costs), unless the fund holding the plan 

assets is tax-exempt under the 

provisions of 26 U.S.C. 501(c); 

(B) Paid to an insurer or trustee to 

establish and maintain a fund or reserve 

for the sole purpose of providing PRB to 

retirees. The assets shall be segregated 

in the trust, or otherwise effectively 

restricted, so that they cannot be used 

by the employer for other purposes; and 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 07–5669 Filed 11–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 600 and 635 

RIN 0648–AU89 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Shark Management Measures; 

Amendment 2 to the Consolidated 

Highly Migratory Species Fishery 

Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is reopening the 

comment period to provide additional 

opportunity for public comment on the 

draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated 

Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) and its July 27, 

2007, proposed rule. More specifically, 

NMFS is interested in receiving 

comments on a modification to shark 

dealer weigh-out slips that would 

facilitate compliance with measures 

proposed in the draft Amendment 2 to 

the HMS FMP, which would require 

fishermen to land sharks with all fins 

naturally attached. Additionally, over 

the course of the comment period, 

NMFS has received suggestions on ways 

to modify the proposed measures to 

minimize impacts to fishermen. NMFS 

is interested in receiving additional 

comments regarding those suggestions. 

Furthermore, as is required under the 

current regulations and was proposed to 

be maintained in the July 27, 2007, 

proposed rule, any overharvests that 

occur in the 2007 or 2008 commercial 

shark fishery will be accounted for with 

the implementation of final Amendment 

2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP. Thus, 

NMFS is reopening the comment period 

for 30 days to gather further public 

comment on these issues. The draft 

Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS 

FMP and its proposed rule also describe 

a range of other management measures 

that could impact fishermen and dealers 

for HMS fisheries. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

receiving written comments on the July 

27, 2007 (72 FR 41392), proposed rule 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS