Cost Accounting Standards Board (CAS) Exemption for Contracts Executed and Performed Outside the United States, Its Territories, and Possessions, 8259-8260 [E8-2668]

Download as PDF pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules proposed in the Report. Each of the proposals is described below. 32. The Report seeks comment on whether the existing rules governing socalled ‘‘pre-filing and post-filing announcements’’ that licensees must air in connection with their license renewal applications should be changed. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether the same information that is currently required for on-air announcements about soon-tobe-filed and pending renewal applications should be posted on a licensee’s website during the relevant months (i.e., the posting begins on the sixth month before the license is due to expire and remains in place until after the deadline for filing petitions to deny). The Report also seeks comment on whether to broaden the required language for these announcements contained in 47 CFR 73.3680(d)(4)(i), which currently provides the Commission’s mailing address as a source for information concerning the broadcast license renewal process, to include the agency’s website address and, where technically feasible, to provide a link directly to the agency’s Web site. 33. The Report invites comment on the Commission’s tentative conclusion that licensees should convene and periodically consult with permanent community advisory boards made up of officials and other leaders from the community of each broadcast station for the purpose of determining significant community needs and issues, and whether the Commission should adopt similar rules or guidelines to foster licensees’ communication with members of their stations’ communities. It also seeks comment on whether television licensees should be required to maintain a physical presence at each television broadcasting facility during all hours of station operation. The Report further seeks comment on the Commission’s tentative conclusion that it should adopt specific procedural guidelines for the processing of license renewal applications for stations based upon their localism programming performance during the preceding license term. The Report also seeks comment on whether a licensee should be required to situate its station main studio within the station’s community of license to encourage production of locally originated programming, and whether accessibility of the main studio increases interaction between the licensee and its station’s community of service. 34. The Report also seeks comment on whether it could be useful for licensees of stations affiliated with networks, in VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:59 Feb 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 fulfilling their localism obligations, to be able to review network programming at some point sufficiently in advance of airtime and whether existing affiliation agreements address such matters. It also seeks comment on the prevalence of voice-tracking, and whether the Commission can and should take steps to limit the practice, require disclosure, or otherwise address it. The Report also seeks comment on whether the Commission should require licensees to provide the agency with data regarding their airing of the music and other performances of local artists and how they compile their stations’ playlists. It also seeks comment on the appropriate form of such disclosures and in what manner, if any, the local nature of a station’s music programming should be considered in any renewal application processing guidelines. Finally, the Report seeks comment on the Commission’s tentative conclusion that it should allow additional qualified LPTV stations to be granted Class A status, as well as on how to define eligibility and the Commission’s statutory authority to take such action. E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 35. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that might minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. Such alternatives may include the following four alternatives (among others): (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. 36. As noted, we are directed under law to describe any such alternatives we consider, including alternatives not explicitly listed above. The Report describes and seeks comment on several possible ways to enhance broadcast localism and diversity, including increasing and improving the amount and nature of broadcast programming that is targeted to the local needs and interests of a licensee’s community of service, and providing more accessible information to the public about broadcasters’ efforts to air such programming. The Report seeks comment on how the proposals described herein will achieve that goal, and commenters are invited to propose PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 8259 steps that the Commission may take to minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 37. None. Ordering Clauses 38. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 4(i), 303, 612, and 616 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 532 and 536, the Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 39. It is further ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324 that notice is hereby given of the proposals and tentative conclusions described in the Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 40. It is further ordered that the Reference Information Center, Consumer Information Bureau, shall send a copy of the Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 73 Radio broadcast services. 47 CFR Part 74 Experimental radio, Auxiliary, Special broadcast and other program distributional services. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8–2664 Filed 2–12–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Office of Federal Procurement Policy 48 CFR Parts 9901 and 9903 Cost Accounting Standards Board (CAS) Exemption for Contracts Executed and Performed Outside the United States, Its Territories, and Possessions Cost Accounting Standards Board, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OMB. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1 8260 ACTION: Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules Notice of Discontinuation of Case. SUMMARY: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Board, is providing public notification of the decision to discontinue its review of the exemption for contracts that are executed and performed outside the United States, its territories, and possessions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Auletta, Manager, Cost Accounting Standards Board, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 9013, Washington, DC 20503 (telephone: 202–395–3256). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS A. Regulatory Process The Cost Accounting Standards 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, 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. 2. Promulgate an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). 3. Promulgate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). 4. Promulgate a Final Rule. This notice announces the discontinuation of a case after completing step one of the four-step process. B. Background and Summary On September 15, 2005, the CAS Board issued a Staff Discussion Paper inviting comments regarding whether the exemption at 48 CFR 9903.201– 1(b)(14) should be revised or eliminated (70 FR 53977). The SDP discussed the history of the exemption. In summary, this discussion stated that the original CAS 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). Therefore, because the provisions of the DPA were applicable only within the United States, the CAS Board rules, VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:59 Feb 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 regulations and standards were also applicable only within the United States. In 1980, the original CAS Board ceased to exist under the DPA and administration of the standards was undertaken by the Department of Defense until the CAS Board was reestablished in 1988 under the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act. In 1991, the new CAS Board retained the exemption when it recodified its rules and regulations at 48 CFR 9902.201–1(b)(14) on April 17, 1992 (57 FR 14148). The SDP published on September 15, 2005 invited public comments on whether the Board should revisit the exemption. participation in the U.S. Government procurement process prohibitive. Another commenter expressed concern that eliminating the exemption would result in applying CAS to foreign contractors that would otherwise be small businesses, since the CAS small business exemption applies only to firms that have a place of business located in the United States. While the CAS Board does not necessarily share each of the views expressed in these comments, the Board agrees with the conclusion not to delete or revise the exemption, especially with the absence of any commenter support for any such revision or elimination. C. Public Comments D. Conclusion Based on the public input and Board discussions of this issue, the Board finds that the exemption should be retained without change. The Board received three sets of public comments in response to the staff discussion paper (available at http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ procurement/casb/ index_public_comments.html). None of the comments supported the Board revising or eliminating the exemption. In fact, all three of the comments offered arguments for why the CAS Board should retain the exemption. One commented that while the OFPP Act, unlike the DPA, does not specifically limit CAS to contracts and subcontracts executed and performed within the United States, when Congress intends for laws to have extraterritorial effect, it would expressly state that intention. Additionally, the commenter notes that given the dynamic nature of international relations and bilateral agreements, the CAS Board would find it difficult to insure consistency of its regulations with international law and trade agreements. This commenter also questioned the material impact of the exemption, stating that, based on anecdotal evidence, contractors do not invoke the exception frequently. The value of the exemption, noted the commenter, includes putting foreign and U.S. companies on an equal footing by applying the same local accounting requirements; facilitating government procurements in the context of war readiness, other military action or disaster relief. Another commenter discussed the impracticality of applying CAS to contracts and subcontracts performed entirely outside the United States, noting, in part, that a contractor would be expected to follow the accounting conventions (rules and regulations) of the country where the contract is being performed. Requiring contractors and those in their supply chain to follow CAS instead would likely make PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Paul A. Denett, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy. [FR Doc. E8–2668 Filed 2–12–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110–01–P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Office of Federal Procurement Policy 48 CFR Part 9904 Cost Accounting Standards Board; Allocation of Home Office Expenses to Segments Cost Accounting Standards Board, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OMB. ACTION: Staff Discussion Paper (SDP). AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Cost Accounting Standards Board (the Board), Office of Federal Procurement Policy, invites public comments on a staff discussion paper (SDP) addressing potential revisions to Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) 403, ‘‘Allocation of Home Office Expenses to Segments.’’ This SDP addresses whether the current thresholds that require use of the three factor formula for allocating residual home office expenses require revision. DATES: Comments must be in writing and must be received by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Due to delays in receipt and processing of mail, respondents are strongly encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. Electronic comments may be submitted to casb2@omb.eop.gov. Please include your name, title, organization, and reference case ‘‘CAS–2008–01S.’’ E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM 13FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8259-8260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2668]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Office of Federal Procurement Policy

48 CFR Parts 9901 and 9903


Cost Accounting Standards Board (CAS) Exemption for Contracts 
Executed and Performed Outside the United States, Its Territories, and 
Possessions

AGENCY: Cost Accounting Standards Board, Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy, OMB.

[[Page 8260]]


ACTION: Notice of Discontinuation of Case.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost 
Accounting Standards (CAS) Board, is providing public notification of 
the decision to discontinue its review of the exemption for contracts 
that are executed and performed outside the United States, its 
territories, and possessions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Auletta, Manager, Cost 
Accounting Standards Board, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 9013, 
Washington, DC 20503 (telephone: 202-395-3256).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory Process

    The Cost Accounting Standards 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, 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.
    2. Promulgate an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).
    3. Promulgate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
    4. Promulgate a Final Rule.
    This notice announces the discontinuation of a case after 
completing step one of the four-step process.

B. Background and Summary

    On September 15, 2005, the CAS Board issued a Staff Discussion 
Paper inviting comments regarding whether the exemption at 48 CFR 
9903.201-1(b)(14) should be revised or eliminated (70 FR 53977). The 
SDP discussed the history of the exemption. In summary, this discussion 
stated that the original CAS 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). Therefore, because the provisions of the DPA were 
applicable only within the United States, the CAS Board rules, 
regulations and standards were also applicable only within the United 
States. In 1980, the original CAS Board ceased to exist under the DPA 
and administration of the standards 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 
retained the exemption when it recodified its rules and regulations at 
48 CFR 9902.201-1(b)(14) on April 17, 1992 (57 FR 14148). The SDP 
published on September 15, 2005 invited public comments on whether the 
Board should revisit the exemption.

C. Public Comments

    The Board received three sets of public comments in response to the 
staff discussion paper (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
procurement/casb/index_public_comments.html). None of the comments 
supported the Board revising or eliminating the exemption. In fact, all 
three of the comments offered arguments for why the CAS Board should 
retain the exemption.
    One commented that while the OFPP Act, unlike the DPA, does not 
specifically limit CAS to contracts and subcontracts executed and 
performed within the United States, when Congress intends for laws to 
have extra-territorial effect, it would expressly state that intention. 
Additionally, the commenter notes that given the dynamic nature of 
international relations and bilateral agreements, the CAS Board would 
find it difficult to insure consistency of its regulations with 
international law and trade agreements. This commenter also questioned 
the material impact of the exemption, stating that, based on anecdotal 
evidence, contractors do not invoke the exception frequently. The value 
of the exemption, noted the commenter, includes putting foreign and 
U.S. companies on an equal footing by applying the same local 
accounting requirements; facilitating government procurements in the 
context of war readiness, other military action or disaster relief.
    Another commenter discussed the impracticality of applying CAS to 
contracts and subcontracts performed entirely outside the United 
States, noting, in part, that a contractor would be expected to follow 
the accounting conventions (rules and regulations) of the country where 
the contract is being performed. Requiring contractors and those in 
their supply chain to follow CAS instead would likely make 
participation in the U.S. Government procurement process prohibitive.
    Another commenter expressed concern that eliminating the exemption 
would result in applying CAS to foreign contractors that would 
otherwise be small businesses, since the CAS small business exemption 
applies only to firms that have a place of business located in the 
United States.
    While the CAS Board does not necessarily share each of the views 
expressed in these comments, the Board agrees with the conclusion not 
to delete or revise the exemption, especially with the absence of any 
commenter support for any such revision or elimination.

D. Conclusion

    Based on the public input and Board discussions of this issue, the 
Board finds that the exemption should be retained without change.

Paul A. Denett,
Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-2668 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P