9116 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 39 / Monday, March 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(CAPE) of the Department of Defense 

and such analysis supports the findings 

(10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(1)(B)). 

(iii) The system being acquired 

pursuant to such contract has not been 

determined to have experienced cost 

growth in excess of the critical cost 

growth threshold pursuant to section 10 

U.S.C. 2433(d) within 5 years prior to 

the date the Secretary anticipates such 

contract (or a contract for advance 

procurement entered into consistent 

with the authorization for such contract) 

will be awarded (10 U.S.C. 

2306b(i)(1)(C)). 

(iv) A sufficient number of end items 

of the system being acquired under such 

contract have been delivered at or 

within the most current estimates of the 

program acquisition unit cost or 

procurement unit cost for such system 

to determine that current estimates of 

such unit costs are realistic (10 U.S.C. 

2306b(i)(1)(D)). 

(v) During the fiscal year in which 

such contract is to be awarded, 

sufficient funds will be available to 

perform the contract in such fiscal year, 

and the future-years defense program for 

such fiscal year will include the funding 

required to execute the program without 

cancellation (10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(1)(E)). 

(vi) The contract is a fixed price type 

contract (10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(1)(F)). 

(vii) The proposed multiyear contract 

provides for production at not less than 

minimum economic rates, given the 

existing tooling and facilities. The head 

of the agency shall submit to USD(C)(P/ 

B) information supporting the agency’s 

determination that this requirement has 

been met (10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(1)(G)). 

(viii) The head of the agency shall 

submit information supporting this 

certification to USD(C)(P/B) for 

transmission to Congress through the 

Secretary of Defense. 

(ix) In the case of a contract with a 

cancellation ceiling in excess of $100 

million, if the budget for the contract 

does not include proposed funding for 

the costs of contract cancellation up to 

the cancellation ceiling established in 

the contract— 

(A) The head of the agency shall, as 

part of this certification, give written 

notification to the congressional defense 

committees of— 

(1) The cancellation ceiling amounts 

planned for each program year in the 

proposed multiyear contract, together 

with the reasons for the amounts 

planned; 

(2) The extent to which costs of 

contract cancellation are not included in 

the budget for the contract; and 

(3) A financial risk assessment of not 

including the budgeting for costs of 

contract cancellation (10 U.S.C. 

2306b(g)); and 

(B) The head of the agency shall 

provide copies of the notification to the 

Office of Management and Budget at 

least 14 days before contract award in 

accordance with the procedures at PGI 

217.1. 

(3) If the value of a multiyear contract 

for a particular system or component 

exceeds $500 million, use of a multiyear 

contract is specifically authorized by— 

(i) An appropriations act (10 U.S.C. 

2306b(l)(3)); and 

(ii) A law other than an 

appropriations act (10 U.S.C. 

2306b(i)(3)). 

(4) The contract is for the 

procurement of a complete and usable 

end item (10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(4)(A)). 

(5) Funds appropriated for any fiscal 

year for advance procurement are 

obligated only for the procurement of 

those long-lead items that are necessary 

in order to meet a planned delivery 

schedule for complete major end items 

that are programmed under the contract 

to be acquired with funds appropriated 

for a subsequent fiscal year (including 

an economic order quantity of such 

long-lead items when authorized by law 

(10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(4)(b)). 

(6) The Secretary may make the 

certification under paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section notwithstanding the fact 

that one or more of the conditions of 

such certification are not met if the 

Secretary determines that, due to 

exceptional circumstances, proceeding 

with a multiyear contract under this 

section is in the best interest of the 

Department of Defense and the 

Secretary provides the basis for such 

determination with the certification (10 

U.S.C. 2306b(i)(5)). 

(7) The Secretary of Defense may not 

delegate this authority to make the 

certification under 217.172(f)(2) or the 

determination under 217.172(f)(6) to an 

official below the level of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics (10 U.S.C. 

2306b(i)(6)). 

(8) The Secretary of Defense shall 

send a notification containing the 

findings of the agency head under FAR 

17.105(b), and the basis for such 

findings, 30 days prior to the award of 

a multiyear contract or a defense 

acquisition program that has been 

specifically authorized by law ((10 

U.S.C. 2306b(i)(7)). 

(9) All other requirements of law are 

met and there are no other statutory 

restrictions on using a multiyear 

contract for the specific system or 

component (10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(2)). One 

such restriction may be the achievement 

of specified cost savings. If the agency 

finds, after negotiations with the 

contractor(s), that the specified savings 

cannot be achieved, the head of the 

agency shall assess the savings that, 

nevertheless, could be achieved by 

using a multiyear contract. If the savings 

are substantial, the head of the agency 

may request relief from the law’s 

specific savings requirement. The 

request shall— 

(i) Quantify the savings that can be 

achieved; 

(ii) Explain any other benefits to the 

Government of using the multiyear 

contract; 

(iii) Include details regarding the 

negotiated contract terms and 

conditions; and 

(iv) Be submitted to OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP for transmission to Congress via 

the Secretary of Defense and the 

President. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2703 Filed 2–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 090206140–91414–04] 

RIN 0648–AX39 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 

Amendment 29 Supplement 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

supplement the regulations 

implementing Amendment 29 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for Reef Fish 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), 

as prepared and submitted by the Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

(Council). Amendment 29 established a 

multi-species individual fishing quota 

(IFQ) program for the grouper and 

tilefish component of the commercial 

sector of the reef fish fishery in the Gulf 

of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic 

zone. This final rule removes several 

measures constraining harvest of 

shallow-water grouper species that were 

inadvertently not removed in the final 

rule for Amendment 29, further clarifies 

existing criteria for approval of new 

landing locations for both the red 

snapper IFQ program and grouper and 

tilefish IFQ program, and provides a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 39 / Monday, March 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9117 

definition of ‘‘offloading’’ in the codified 

text for IFQ participants. The intent of 

this final rule is to enhance IFQ program 

enforcement capabilities, reduce 

confusion for IFQ participants 

offloading their fish, and allow for more 

efficient functioning of the IFQ 

programs for red snapper and groupers 

and tilefishes. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 31, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final 

regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 

and record of decision may be obtained 

from Susan Gerhart, Southeast Regional 

Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701–5505. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted by e-mail to 

rich.malinowski@noaa.gov, or 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or by fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727–824– 

5305. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef 

fish fishery of the Gulf is managed 

under the FMP. The FMP was prepared 

by the Council and is implemented 

through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). 

This final rule includes 

administrative measures that were not 

included in the final rule for 

Amendment 29 (74 FR 44732). These 

measures allow for more efficient 

functioning of the grouper and tilefish 

IFQ program, reduce confusion among 

IFQ participants who are offloading 

their fish, and further enhance 

enforcement capabilities of the IFQ 

programs, as intended by the Council. 

This final rule also discusses two 

options considered by the Council at the 

October 2009 Council meeting. On 

December 10, 2009, NMFS published a 

proposed rule to supplement the final 

rule for Amendment 29 and requested 

public comment (74 FR 65500). NMFS 

invited comments in the proposed rule 

on these options, which include 

extending the offloading window past 6 

p.m. and providing an option to 

fishermen at the time of landing to 

provide a headcount of the IFQ fish 

onboard. NMFS received comments on 

both of these options, which are 

provided along with NMFS’ responses 

to these comments in the comments and 

responses section below. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received seven public 

comments on the proposed 

supplemental rule to Amendment 29. 

One comment, regarding transferability 

of IFQ shares, fell outside the scope of 

the rule and was not addressed in this 

final rule. One comment pertained to 

the actions addressed in the proposed 

rule; the rest pertained to options the 

Council may consider in the future. No 

comments were received pertaining to 

the FRFA or economic impacts of this 

action. The following are NMFS’ 

responses to topics in these comments. 

Comment 1: The rule should further 

clarify what it means for a landing 

location to be accessible by public 

roads. 

Response: The text states that in order 

for a proposed landing location to be 

considered publicly accessible, vehicles 

must have access to the site via public 

roads. NMFS believes that this language 

provides a sufficient description of the 

requirement, and further clarification is 

unnecessary. 

Comment 2: If a landing location is 

disapproved, documentation should be 

provided explaining the disapproval, 

and an appeals process should be 

created. 

Response: NMFS is working to 

develop a process for informing 

participants of the reasons for 

disapproving a landing location. This 

may include a publicly posted list of 

disapproved sites, or individual 

responses to participants. 

An appeals process is neither 

practical nor necessary for the NMFS 

disapproval of a landing location. 

Locations are disapproved by NMFS if 

they are not accessible or are deemed 

unsafe for law enforcement agents. If 

participants rectify the situation to 

eliminate these deficiencies, they can 

re-submit the location for another 

review. 

Comment 3: Fishermen with smaller 

vessels frequently do not have 

computers onboard and should be 

allowed to call dealers to receive a 

landing transaction code to transport 

fish. 

Response: Under current regulations, 

the dealer must enter all landing 

transactions through the dealer IFQ 

account to receive a landing transaction 

code. Thus, fishermen may call their 

dealer to electronically connect to the 

IFQ system if they are at a landing site 

other than the dealer facility. The 

fishermen must still accurately weigh 

the fish on site to complete the landing 

transaction before transporting the fish. 

There is no specific requirement for a 

computer to be onboard a vessel and be 

used as the mechanism to receive a 

landing transaction code, only that a 

landing transaction code be received by 

the fishermen prior to transporting fish. 

Comment 4: Allowing a headcount 

would help small-scale fishermen 

because weighing fish onboard is 

difficult, time consuming, and not very 

accurate. 

Response: The Council is considering 

this option for the same reasons 

expressed in the comment. NMFS’ 

preliminary determination is that 

providing a headcount instead of the 

weight of the catch at the time of 

landing would not allow for adequate 

monitoring and enforcement of the IFQ 

program. However, if the Council 

chooses to proceed with this option, 

some controls would need to be applied 

to restrict the use of this option (see 

Comment 5). 

Comment 5: If a headcount is 

implemented, limitations and controls 

should be developed, such as allowing 

the headcount only for trailered vessels 

at public sites, creating a trip limit (e.g., 

200 lb (90.7 kg)) for vessels using a 

headcount, and requiring weights if the 

shareholder’s allocation is less than a 

minimum amount. 

Response: If the Council chooses to 

proceed with the headcount option, the 

suggested restrictions would be 

considered. These controls and 

limitations would help address NMFS’ 

concerns about monitoring and 

enforcement. However, these changes to 

the regulations would need to be 

addressed in future regulatory action 

before regulations could be 

implemented. 

Comment 6: Extending the offloading 

time period past 6 p.m. would help 

fishermen who trailer their boats. Under 

current regulations, some fishermen 

landing after 6 p.m. must leave the boat 

overnight at their landing location and 

offload in the morning. Problems 

include: leaving a vessel unattended in 

a public area, the need to reassemble a 

crew for offloading, and restrictions on 

docking/parking at public sites. 

Response: The Council is considering 

this option for the same reasons 

expressed in the comment. Because 

Amendment 29 specifically states that 

the allowable time period to offload IFQ 

fish is between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. local 

time, the Council would need to address 

this option in a future plan amendment 

if it is to be implemented in the future. 

Classification 

The Administrator, Southeast Region, 

NMFS has determined that the FMP, 

Amendment 29, and the final rule are 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and other applicable laws. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

9118 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 39 / Monday, March 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

NMFS prepared an FEIS for 

Amendment 29. A notice of availability 

for the FEIS was published on May 8, 

2009 (74 FR 21684). 

NMFS prepared a FRFA, as required 

by section 604 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, for Amendment 29. A 

copy of the full analysis is available 

from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). Two of the 

measures contained in this final rule, 

namely the measure to remove the trip 

limit and accountability measures that 

constrain commercial harvest and the 

measure to clarify existing landing 

location criteria, are measures inherent 

in an IFQ program. Providing a 

definition of the term ‘‘offloading’’ for 

IFQ participants is further clarification 

of an existing IFQ component. The 

FRFA prepared for Amendment 29 

analyzed the economic conditions that 

would exist assuming these measures 

were already included in the IFQ 

program for Gulf groupers and tilefishes. 

No new economic effects would be 

expected to accrue to this rule in 

addition to those described in 

Amendment 29 and no comments were 

received about the economic impacts of 

the proposed rule, therefore, no new 

economic analysis has been conducted 

for those measures in this final rule. 

This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which has been approved by OMB 

under control number (0648–0587). 

Public reporting burden for the 

‘‘Landing Location Criteria Form’’ is 

estimated to average 5 minutes per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Send comments regarding the burden 

estimate or any other aspect of the 

collection-of-information requirement, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to NMFS and to the OMB (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the PRA unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Virgin Islands. 

Dated: February 23, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE 

CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH 

ATLANTIC 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 622 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 622.16, a sentence is added 

after the heading in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) 

and paragraphs (c)(3)(v)(A) and (B) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.16 Gulf red snapper individual 

fishing quota (IFQ) program. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * For the purpose of this 

paragraph, offloading means to remove 

IFQ red snapper from a vessel. * * * 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

(A) Landing locations must have a 

street address. If there is no street 

address on record for a particular 

landing location, global positioning 

system (GPS) coordinates for an 

identifiable geographic location must be 

provided. 

(B) Landing locations must be 

publicly accessible by land and water, 

and must satisfy the following criteria: 

(1) Vehicles must have access to the 

site via public roads; 

(2) Vessels must have access to the 

site via navigable waters; 

(3) No other condition may impede 

free and immediate access to the site by 

an authorized law enforcement officer. 

Examples of such conditions include, 

but are not limited to: A locked gate, 

fence, wall, or other barrier preventing 

24-hour access to the site; a gated 

community entry point; a guard animal; 

a posted sign restricting access to the 

site; or any other physical deterrent. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 622.20, a sentence is added 

after the heading in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) 

and paragraphs (c)(3)(v)(A) and (B) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.20 Individual fishing quota (IFQ) 

program for Gulf groupers and tilefishes. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * For the purpose of this 

paragraph, offloading means to remove 

IFQ groupers and tilefishes from a 

vessel. * * * 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

(A) Landing locations must have a 

street address. If there is no street 

address on record for a particular 

landing location, global positioning 

system (GPS) coordinates for an 

identifiable geographic location must be 

provided. 

(B) Landing locations must be 

publicly accessible by land and water, 

and must satisfy the following criteria: 

(1) Vehicles must have access to the 

site via public roads; 

(2) Vessels must have access to the 

site via navigable waters; 

(3) No other condition may impede 

free and immediate access to the site by 

an authorized law enforcement officer. 

Examples of such conditions include, 

but are not limited to: A locked gate, 

fence, wall, or other barrier preventing 

24-hour access to the site; a gated 

community entry point; a guard animal; 

a posted sign restricting access to the 

site; or any other physical deterrent. 

* * * * * 

§ 622.44 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 622.44, paragraph (h) is 

removed. 

■ 5. In § 622.49, paragraphs (a)(3)(i), 

(a)(4)(i), and (a)(5)(i) are revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 622.49 Accountability measures. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) Commercial fishery. If SWG 

commercial landings exceed the 

applicable ACL as specified in this 

paragraph (a)(3)(I), the AA will file a 

notification with the Office of the 

Federal Register, at or near the 

beginning of the following fishing year, 

to maintain the SWG commercial quota 

for that following year at the level of the 

prior year’s quota. The applicable 

commercial ACLs for SWG, in gutted 

weight, are 7.99 million lb (3.62 million 

kg) for 2010, and 8.04 million lb (3.65 

million kg) for 2011 and subsequent 

fishing years. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Commercial fishery. If gag 

commercial landings exceed the 

applicable ACL as specified in this 

paragraph (a)(4)(I), the AA will file a 

notification with the Office of the 

Federal Register, at or near the 

beginning of the following fishing year, 

to maintain the gag commercial quota 

for that following year at the level of the 

prior year’s quota. The applicable 

commercial ACLs for gag, in gutted 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 39 / Monday, March 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 9119 

weight, are 1.71 million lb (0.78 million 

kg) for 2010, and 1.76 million lb (0.80 

million kg) for 2011 and subsequent 

fishing years. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) Commercial fishery. If red grouper 

commercial landings exceed the ACL, 

5.87 million lb (2.66 million kg) gutted 

weight, the AA will file a notification 

with the Office of the Federal Register, 

at or near the beginning of the following 

fishing year, to maintain the red grouper 

commercial quota for that following 

year at the level of the prior year’s 

quota. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–4191 Filed 2–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES