Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 2653 

State and location Community 

No. 

Effective date authorization/cancellation of 

sale of flood insurance in community 

Current effective 

map date 

Date certain 

Federal assistance no longer 

available in 

SFHAs 

Washington County, Unincorporated 

Areas.

310483 September 4, 1975, Emerg; February 4, 

1981, Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Region VIII 

Colorado: 

Canon City, City of, Fremont County .... 080068 May 28, 1974, Emerg; November 3, 1982, 

Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Coal Creek, Town of, Fremont County 080210 N/A, Emerg; February 4, 2011, Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.......do ............... Do. 

Florence, City of, Fremont County ........ 080070 June 25, 1975, Emerg; December 4, 1984, 

Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Fremont County, Unincorporated Areas 080067 June 25, 1975, Emerg; September 29, 

1989, Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Montrose, City of, Montrose County ..... 080125 January 31, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1984, 

Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Montrose County, Unincorporated 

Areas.

080124 May 23, 1975, Emerg; February 15, 1984, 

Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Naturita, Town of, Montrose County ..... 080126 June 18, 1975, Emerg; January 6, 1982, 

Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Olathe, Town of, Montrose County ....... 080128 June 5, 1975, Emerg; September 16, 1982, 

Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Rockvale, Town of, Fremont County ..... 080221 September 21, 1979, Emerg; October 15, 

1985, Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Montana: 

Butte-Silver Bow County, All Jurisdictions.300077 September 17, 1974, Emerg; September 

28, 1979, Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

South Dakota: 

Belle Fourche, City of, Butte County ..... 460012 May 3, 1973, Emerg; June 1, 1977, Reg; 

January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Butte County, Unincorporated Areas .... 460236 November 24, 1998, Emerg; N/A, Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.......do ............... Do. 

Custer, City of, Custer County .............. 460019 April 11, 1973, Emerg; January 2, 1981, 

Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Custer County, Unincorporated Areas .. 460018 October 28, 1977, Emerg; September 29, 

1986, Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Hermosa, Town of, Custer County ........ 460230 July 24, 2003, Emerg; August 1, 2006, Reg; 

January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Woonsocket, City of, Sanborn County .. 460075 May 28, 1975, Emerg; November 15, 1985, 

Reg; January 6, 2012, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

*do- = Ditto. 

Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp—Suspension. 

Dated: December 9, 2011. 

David L. Miller, 

Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Department 

of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2012–900 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 212 and 252 

RIN 0750–AH27 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Pilot Program 

for Acquisition of Military-Purpose 

Nondevelopmental Items (DFARS Case 

2011–D034) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is adopting as final, 

without change, an interim rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

establishing a pilot program to assess 

the feasibility and advisability of 

acquiring military-purpose 

nondevelopmental items in accordance 

with streamlined procedures. 

DATES: Effective date: January 19, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Manuel Quinones, telephone (703) 602– 

8383. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

To implement section 866 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011, DoD published an 

interim rule in the Federal Register at 

76 FR 38048 on June 29, 2011, 

establishing a pilot program to assess 

the feasibility and advisability of 

acquiring military-purpose 

nondevelopmental items in accordance 

with streamlined procedures. The 

authority for this pilot program expires 

on January 6, 2016. Under this pilot 

program, DoD may enter into contracts 


EMCDONALD on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
2654 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

with nontraditional defense contractors 

for the purpose of— 

—Enabling DoD to acquire items that 

otherwise might not have been 

available to DoD; 

—Assisting DoD in the rapid acquisition 

and fielding of capabilities needed to 

meet urgent operational needs; and 

—Protecting the interests of the United 

States in paying fair and reasonable 

prices for the item or items acquired. 

This pilot program is designed to test 

whether the streamlined procedures, 

similar to those available for 

commercial items, can serve as an 

effective incentive for nontraditional 

defense contractors to (1) channel 

investment and innovation into areas 

that are useful to DoD and (2) provide 

items developed exclusively at private 

expense to meet validated military 

requirements. 

II. Discussion and Analysis of the 

Public Comments 

DoD reviewed the public comments 

received from three respondents in the 

development of the final rule. Two of 

the three respondents are supportive of 

both the congressional intent and the 

interim rule. The respondents submitted 

comments covering the following three 

categories: (A) Definition of 

nontraditional defense contractor; (B) 

definition of military-purpose 

nondevelopmental item; and (C) flow 

down of provision to subcontractors. A 

discussion of the comments and 

responses are provided as follows. 

A. Definition of Nontraditional Defense 

Contractor 

Two of the three respondents 

recommended revisions to the 

definition of nontraditional defense 

contractor. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

expanding the definition of a 

nontraditional defense contractor to 

mean an entity to include a business 

unit, segment or wholly-owned 

subsidiary of an entity. The respondent 

asserted that such clarifying language 

would permit a commercial company 

that occasionally accepts a contract with 

certified cost or pricing data 

requirements to participate in the pilot 

program without being burdened by 

what are recognized to be onerous 

contractual requirements. 

Response: With regard to expanding 

the meaning of an entity to include ‘‘a 

business unit, segment or wholly-owned 

subsidiary of an entity,’’ the entity 

referred to in the interim rule is, in 

essence, the legal entity that signs the 

contract with the Government. This 

entity must meet all of the statutory 

requirements included in the definition 

for a nontraditional defense contractor 

contained in the contract clause, and 

changing the definition as requested 

would not be consistent with that 

definition. Therefore, no changes have 

been made to the final rule as a result 

of the comment. 

Comment: Another respondent stated 

that the definitions are not clear as to 

whether Congress intended to allow 

subcontractors of prime contractors to 

be considered nontraditional defense 

contractors for purposes of the rule. The 

respondent asked, in situations where 

the prime contractor does not meet the 

definition of a nontraditional defense 

contractor, whether each of the 

subcontractors to the prime contractor 

will fail to meet the definition as well 

due to the definition of nontraditional 

defense contractor applying to contracts 

or subcontracts. 

Response: The statutory definition of 

a nontraditional defense contractor (10 

U.S.C. 2302) outlines the criteria that 

must be met by a prospective contractor 

to be eligible for the pilot program, 

which only covers award to prime 

contractors. One criterion states the 

entity may not be currently performing 

or has not performed ‘‘any contract or 

subcontracts’’ for DoD that is subject to 

full coverage under cost accounting 

standards. Entities that have performed 

as subcontractors to traditional defense 

contractors are not necessarily excluded 

from participating as a prime contractor 

under this pilot so long as the 

subcontract requirements did not entail 

the disqualifying criteria (i.e., full CAS 

coverage and certified cost and pricing 

data) and the entity otherwise meets the 

criteria. No changes have been made to 

the final rule as a result of this 

comment. 

B. Definition of Military-Purpose 

Nondevelopmental Item 

Comment: A respondent 

recommended amending the definition 

of the term ‘‘military-purpose 

nondevelopmental item’’ by revising the 

definitional criteria for determining 

whether an item meets the definition, 

including the extent to which 

independent research and development 

(IR&D) costs, and bid and proposal 

(B&P) costs, are considered in such a 

determination. The respondent cited 

section 824(b)(2) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2011, Pub. L. 111–383, as the 

basis for the recommended change. 

Response: The interim rule uses the 

statutory definition of the term ‘‘military 

purpose nondevelopmental item’’ 

required by section 866 of the NDAA for 

FY 2011 and used only for purposes of 

this pilot program. The substantive 

revisions to the definition as proposed 

by the respondent would result in the 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) definition being 

noncompliant with the statutory 

definition and the criteria for applying 

the specialized procedures authorized 

for this pilot program. It is also 

important to note that the requirements 

for treatment of IR&D and B&P costs that 

are established by section 824 of the 

NDAA for FY2011 are being addressed 

through DFARS Case 2011–D022. No 

changes have been made to the final 

rule as a result of this comment. 

C. Flow Down of Provision to 

Subcontractors 

Comment: A respondent stated that 

the interim rule (published as DFARS 

subpart 212.71) fails to clearly address 

the common situation in which a 

nontraditional defense contractor may 

simultaneously be a subcontractor or 

supplier to a traditional defense 

contractor. The respondent 

recommended the new DFARS rule 

make clear that it may and should flow 

down through any prime contract, to the 

suppliers/subcontractors. 

Response: Unlike certain clauses, 

provisions are not flowed down to 

subcontractors. Solicitation provisions 

are to be completed and submitted by 

the prospective prime contractor with 

its offer. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to 

the program if a nontraditional defense 

contractor is simultaneously a 

subcontractor or supplier to a traditional 

defense contractor. As previously stated, 

section 866 only covers award to a 

prime contractor. No changes have been 

made to the final rule as a result of this 

comment. 

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 


EMCDONALD on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 2655 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A final regulatory flexibility analysis 

has been prepared consistent with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604, 

and is summarized as follows: 

This rule implements a statutory 

requirement under section 866 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. 

Section 866 authorized the Secretary of 

Defense to establish a pilot program to 

assess the feasibility and advisability of 

acquiring military-purpose 

nondevelopmental items. 

The objective of this new DoD 

program is to permit DoD to enter into 

contracts with nontraditional defense 

contractors for the purpose of (1) 

Enabling DoD to acquire items that 

otherwise might not have been available 

to DoD; (2) assisting DoD in the rapid 

acquisition and fielding of capabilities 

needed to meet urgent operational 

needs; and (3) protecting the interests of 

the United States in paying fair and 

reasonable prices for the item or items 

acquired. 

No public comments were received in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. The Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration did not file any 

comments in response to this rule. 

DoD is unable to estimate at this time 

the number of small entities impacted 

by the rule, since this is a new pilot 

program and its purpose is to identify 

and attract nontraditional defense 

contractors as defined within the rule 

and section 866 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

There are no reporting, recordkeeping, 

or other compliance requirements to 

small entities associated with this rule. 

Additionally, there were no significant 

alternatives considered that met the 

stated objectives of the applicable 

statute. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 212 and 

252 

Government procurement. 

Mary Overstreet, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without 

Change 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 48 CFR parts 212 and 252, 

which was published at 76 FR 38048 on 

June 29, 2011, is adopted as a final rule 

without change. 

[FR Doc. 2012–970 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 100804324–1265–02] 

RIN 0648–XA927 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 

Pacific Whiting and Non-Whiting 

Allocations; Pacific Whiting Seasons 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Reapportionment of nonwhiting catch allocations from 

mothership sector to catcher/processor 

sector; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This notification announces 

the reapportionment of 4.3 metric tons 

(mt) of Darkblotched rockfish, 6.5 mt of 

Pacific Ocean Perch, 3.3 mt of Canary 

rockfish, and 48.3 mt of Widow rockfish 

from the mothership sector to the 

catcher/processor sector. 

DATES: The reapportionment of nonwhiting is effective from 1600 local 

time, December 14, 2011, until 

December 31, 2011, unless modified, 

superseded or rescinded. Comments 

will be accepted through February 3, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2010–0194 

by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter (NOAA–NMFS–2010–0194) 

in the keyword search. Locate the 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right 

of that line. 

• Fax: (206) 526–6736, Attn: Kevin C. 

Duffy. 

• Email comments directly to NMFS, 

Northwest Region at: 

Whitingreapportionment@noaa.gov. 

• Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Northwest 

Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way 

NE., Seattle, WA 98115–0070, Attn: 

Kevin C. Duffy. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (if submitting comments via 

the Federal Rulemaking portal, enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the relevant required fields if 

you wish to remain anonymous). 

Attachments to electronic comments 

will be accepted in Microsoft Word, 

Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file 

formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin C. Duffy (Northwest Region, 

NMFS), phone: (206) 526–4743, fax: 

(206) 526–6736 and email: 

kevin.duffy@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This notice is accessible via the 

Internet at the Office of the Federal 

Register’s Web site at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action. 

Background information and documents 

are available at the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s Web site at 

http://www.pcouncil.org/. 

Background 

This action is authorized by 

regulations implementing the Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP), which governs the 

groundfish fishery off Washington, 

Oregon, and California. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 

660.150(c)(4)(ii) provide for the 

Regional Administrator to make 

available for harvest to the catcher/ 

processor sector of the Pacific whiting 

fishery, the mothership sector’s 

nonwhiting catch allocation remaining 

when the Pacific whiting allocation is 

reached or when participants in the 

mothership sector do not intend to 

harvest the remaining allocation. 

Consistent with these provisions, the 

Whiting Mothership Cooperative 

Manager notified NMFS in writing on 

December 13, 2011 that the Whiting 

Mothership Cooperative had concluded 

their harvest of mothership sector 

whiting for 2011. 

The best available information on 

December 14, 2011 indicated that 

approximately 4.3 metric tons mt of 


EMCDONALD on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES