• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4337 • After analyzing the public and FAR, how does a contractor recover DATES: The finding announced in this comments, the FAR Council withdrew amounts related to catastrophic losses, document was made on January 19, the proposed definition. In since the costs cannot be assigned based 2006. You may submit new information recommending withdrawal of the rule, on actual costs under CAS (and concerning this species for our the June 26, 2003 report of the FAR Part therefore are not allowable as actual consideration at any time. 31 Streamlining Committee noted the costs), and the costs are unallowable as ADDRESSES: The complete file for this following: self-insurance charges under FAR? finding is available for public Upon further review, the Committee 3. How does the insurance industry inspection, by appointment, during recommends that the proposed definition of use the term ‘‘catastrophic losses?’’ normal business hours at the Utah Fish catastrophic losses be deleted from the final 4. How does the insurance industry’s and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and rule. The Committee continues to believe that use of the term ‘‘catastrophic losses’’ Wildlife Service, 2369 West Orton the proposed definition is consistent with the differ from its use in CAS and FAR, if Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah intent of the promulgators of the current any? 84119. Submit new information, language, as evidenced by the March 19, 5. Have there been problems in the materials, comments, or questions 1979 Committee report underlying DAR Case implementation of CAS 416.50(b)(1) as 78–400–7. concerning this species to us at the a result of the use of the term above address. The intent of the proposed coverage was to ‘‘catastrophic?’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: distinguish catastrophic losses as used in the 6. Provide any examples of instances cost principle from the type of catastrophic Henry Maddux, Field Supervisor, Utah where the use of the term ‘‘catastrophic’’ loss anticipated by the illustration at CAS Fish and Wildlife Office (see has resulted in contract disputes. For 416.60(h). In that illustration, motor vehicle ADDRESSES) (telephone 801–975–3330, each example provided, include the liability losses in excess of a specified extension 124; facsimile 801–975–3331). amount were absorbed by the home office nature of the dispute and the resolution. and reallocated to all segments. In the 7. Provide any comments as to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: particular case described, the specified whether the language at CAS Background amount was too low based on loss experience 416.50(b)(1) should be revised. If the to be considered catastrophic under the recommendation is to revise the Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered provisions of CAS 416. However, the language, please provide suggested Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended illustration appears to anticipate losses that revisions. (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we may be catastrophic to a particular segment make a finding on whether a petition to of a company but not necessarily catastrophic 8. Provide any comments regarding use of the term ‘‘extraordinary item’’ as list, delist, or reclassify a species in a more general sense. The Committee does presents substantial scientific or not believe the drafters of the cost principle used in Generally Accepted Accounting intended to disallow self-insurance charges Principles in lieu of the term commercial information to indicate that for the type of loss anticipated by the CAS ‘‘catastrophic insurance.’’ the petitioned action may be warranted. illustration. However, since CAS does not We are to base this finding on include a definition of catastrophic loss, [FR Doc. E6–975 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am] information provided in the petition defining the term in FAR could cause BILLING CODE 3110–01–P and other information that is readily confusion by the users of these regulations. available to us (e.g., in our files). To the As to the commenter’s recommendation maximum extent practicable, we are to that self-insurance charges for catastrophic DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR make this finding within 90 days of our losses should be allowable, the Committee receipt of the petition, and publish our disagrees. As was noted in the report on DAR Fish and Wildlife Service Case 78–400–7, the Government should not notice of this finding promptly in the Federal Register. allow self-insurance charges for catastrophic 50 CFR Part 17 losses, such as earthquakes, which have a Our standard for substantial scientific information within the Code of Federal very small likelihood of occurring for any Endangered and Threatened Wildlife particular contractor. Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90- and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of Key Questions for Consideration Petition To List the Mussentuchit Gilia information that would lead a as Threatened or Endangered The CAS Board is soliciting reasonable person to believe that the comments on this issue from interested AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, measure proposed in the petition may parties. In particular, the Board is Interior. be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we interested in comments related to the ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition find that substantial scientific following questions: finding. information was presented, we are 1. Do contractors and contracting required to commence a review of the agencies currently interpret the term SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and status of the species. ‘‘catastrophic losses’’ differently when Wildlife Service (Service), announce a In making this finding, we relied on applying CAS 416.50(b)(1) and FAR 90-day finding on a petition to list the information provided by the petitioners, 31.205–19(e)? If so, how does the use of Mussentuchit gilia (Gilia [=Aliciella] and readily available in our files, and the term differ between the two tenuis) as threatened or endangered evaluated that information in applications? under the Endangered Species Act of accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our 2. Under CAS 416.50(b)(1), the 1973, as amended. We find the petition process of coming to a 90-day finding contractor is required to assign does not provide substantial under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and insurance costs on the basis of the information indicating that listing Gilia section 424.14(b) of our regulations is projected average loss. Actual losses [=Aliciella] tenuis may be warranted. limited to a determination of whether cannot be used unless they approximate Therefore, we will not be initiating a the information in the petition meets the the projected average loss. FAR 31.205– further status review in response to this ‘‘substantial scientific information’’ 19(c)(4) disallows self-insurance costs petition. The public may submit to us threshold. for catastrophic losses. Thus, if the term any new information that becomes We added Aliciella tenuis to our list ‘‘catastrophic losses’’ is interpreted as available concerning the status of the of candidate species on September 30, having the same meaning in both CAS species or threats to it. 1993, as a category 2 candidate species VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:54 Jan 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM 26JAP1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS 4338 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules (58 FR 51144). In the February 28, 1996, remained obscure until the 1980s. The in the petition and readily available in Notice of Review (61 FR 7595), we species was described in the scientific our files, is presented below. discontinued the use of multiple literature in 1989 (Smith and Neese A. Present or Threatened Destruction, candidate categories and considered the 1989) as Gilia tenuis and subsequently Modification, or Curtailment of the former category 1 candidates as simply included in the resurrected genus Species’ Habitat or Range ‘‘candidates’’ for listing purposes. The Aliciella in 1998 (Porter 1998). We A. tenuis was removed from the accept the name Aliciella tenuis as the The petition claims that there are 17 candidate list at that time. This species valid name for Mussentuchit gilia. populations of Aliciella tenuis, and that currently has no Federal regulatory Aliciella tenuis is a rare, edaphically the species is threatened mainly by status. restricted plant in southwestern Emery, activities surrounding oil, gas, and On March 10, 2004, we received a southeastern Sevier, and northern mineral extraction; livestock trampling; formal petition, dated March 9, 2004, Wayne Counties, Utah. The species’ off-road vehicle (ORV) use; recreational from the Southern Utah Wilderness range spans about 45 miles (mi) (72 activities; and weed invasions. Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, kilometers (km)) from its South Desert Oil, Gas, and Mineral Extraction and Utah Native Plant Society, population in Waterpocket Fold within requesting that the Mussentuchit gilia Capitol Reef National Park to its Secret The petition cites general information (Gilia [=Aliciella] tenuis) found in Utah Mesa population in the San Rafael on oil, gas, and mineral extraction. The be listed as threatened or endangered Swell. The species has been delineated petition asserts that 3 of 17 populations pursuant to section 4 of the Act. This into 7 populations, with 1 to 8 separate are in areas under lease for oil and gas petition was identical to a petition sites in each population, for a total of 39 development. Petitioners claim that oil, submitted on May 19, 2003, to which, sites (Clark 2005). Based on Dr. Johnson gas, and mineral exploration involve due to funding limitations, we were (2005, memo to Clark), DNA studies construction of well pads, roads, unable to respond during Fiscal Year between these populations indicate four pipelines, and other associated (FY) 2003.

Load more

  5

Copy Link