Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 49365 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

James D. Bradshaw, 

Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. 

Rule Changes 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, 

and 339. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Oregon, is amended 

by adding Gearhart, Channel 227A, by 

removing Channel *251C1 at Madras, by 

adding Channel *243C1 at Madras, and 

by adding Manzanita, Channel 248C3. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20340 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

48 CFR Part 9903 

Cost Accounting Standards: 

Elimination of the Exemption From 

Cost Accounting Standards for 

Contracts and Subcontracts Executed 

and Performed Entirely Outside the 

United States, Its Territories, and 

Possessions 

AGENCY: Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost 

Accounting Standards Board (Board). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost 

Accounting Standards (CAS) Board, is 

publishing a final rule to eliminate the 

exemption from regulations regarding 

Cost Accounting Standards for contracts 

executed and performed entirely outside 

the United States, its territories, and 

possessions. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 11, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raymond J. M. Wong, Director, Cost 

Accounting Standards Board (telephone: 

202–395–6805; e-mail: 

Raymond_wong@omb.eop.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Regulatory Process—Changes to 48 

CFR Part 9903 

The CAS Board’s regulations and 

Standards are codified at 48 CFR 

chapter 99. This notice concerns the 

amendment of a CAS Board regulation 

other than a Standard, and as such is 

not subject to the statutorily prescribed 

rulemaking process for the 

promulgation of a Standard at 41 U.S.C. 

1502(c) [formerly, 41 U.S.C. 422(g)]. The 

document being published today is a 

Final Rule. 

B. Background and Summary 

The Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy (OFPP), Cost Accounting 

Standards (CAS) Board, is publishing a 

final rule to eliminate the exemption at 

48 CFR 9903.201–1(b)(14) from the Cost 

Accounting Standards for contracts 

executed and performed entirely outside 

the United States, its territories, and 

possessions (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘(b)(14) overseas exemption’’). 

The CAS Board is publishing a final 

rule which eliminates the (b)(14) 

overseas exemption from CAS for 

contracts and subcontracts executed and 

performed entirely outside the United 

States, its territories, and possessions. 

Statutory Requirement 

Section 823(a) of the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (NDAA FY 2009) 

required the CAS Board to: ‘‘(1) Review 

the inapplicability of the cost 

accounting standards, in accordance 

with existing exemptions, to any 

contract and subcontract that is 

executed and performed outside the 

United States when such a contract or 

subcontract is performed by a contractor 

that, but for the fact that the contract or 

subcontract is being executed and 

performed entirely outside the United 

States, would be required to comply 

with such standards; and (2) determine 

whether the application of the standards 

to such a contract and subcontract (or 

any category of such contracts and 

subcontracts) would benefit the 

Government.’’ Section 823 further 

required the CAS Board to publish a 

request for information and to submit to 

the appropriate committees of Congress 

a report containing: (1) Any proposed 

revision to the CAS regulations as a 

result of the review and a copy of any 

proposed rulemaking implementing the 

revision or (2) if no revision and 

rulemaking are proposed, a detailed 

justification for such decision. 

History of the (b)(14) Overseas 

Exemption 

The (b)(14) overseas exemption was 

first promulgated in 1973 at Section 3– 

1204 of the Armed Services 

Procurement Regulation (ASPR). See 

Defense Procurement Circular No. 115 

(dated September 24, 1973). The reason 

given for promulgation of the (b)(14) 

overseas exemption was that the 

underlying authority for CAS, Section 

2168 of the Defense Production Act 

(DPA), was applicable to the United 

States, its Territories and possessions, 

and the District of Columbia (Section 

2163 of the DPA). The (b)(14) overseas 

exemption was intended to eliminate 

confusion that had existed at that time 

over the applicability of CAS outside 

the United States. 

In 1980, the CAS Board ceased to 

exist under the DPA. Congress 

reestablished the CAS Board in 1988 

under Section 22 of the OFPP Act, 41 

U.S.C. 1501 [formerly, 41 U.S.C. 422]. 

Unlike the DPA, under the OFPP Act, 

CAS is not limited in applicability to 

the United States. However, in 1991, the 

CAS Board, after reviewing the rules 

and regulations applicable to the 

administration of CAS, opted to retain 

the (b)(14) overseas exemption. 

The CAS Board later sought to 

reevaluate the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption. On September 13, 2005, the 

CAS Board published a notice seeking 

comment on the Staff Discussion Paper 

(SDP) discussing the appropriateness of 

continuing the exemption (70 FR 

53977). Only three public comments 

were received, all of which supported 

retaining the exemption. The CAS Board 

took no further action at that time and 

published a notice discontinuing the 

review on February 13, 2008 (73 FR 

8259). 

In response to Section 823(a) of 

NDAA FY 2009, the CAS Board 

published on April 23, 2009, another 

notice requesting information on six 

general questions regarding the (b)(14) 

overseas exemption (74 FR 18491). In 

addition to this notice, the CAS Board 

requested assessments directly from 

three Federal agencies with significant 

volume of contracts performed outside 

of the United States—the Department of 

Defense (DOD), the Department of State 

(DOS) and the United States Agency for 

International Development (USAID). 

After reviewing the comments received 

from the notice and the assessments of 

the three Federal agencies, the CAS 

Board published a Notice of Proposed 

Rule (NPR) on October 20, 2010, 

proposing to eliminate the (b)(14) 

overseas exemption (75 FR 64684). A 

copy of the proposed rule was provided 

to the appropriate committees of 

Congress in accordance with Section 

823. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

49366 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Conclusions 

The CAS Board has considered the 

comments received in response to the 

NPR, which are available to the public 

on the CAS Board’s Web site at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

casb_index_public_comments/ and 

http://www.regulations.gov, and has 

concluded that the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption should be eliminated. 

Although the CAS Board’s responses to 

specific comments received are 

discussed later in this notice, the 

principal reasons for eliminating the 

exemptions are as follows: 

(1) The statutory basis originally used 

to justify the (b)(14) overseas exemption 

no longer exists. Absent such 

justification, the CAS Board must give 

deference to the existing CAS 

applicability statutes as mandatory for 

use by all executive agencies and by 

contractors and subcontractors in 

estimating, accumulating, and reporting 

costs in connection with pricing and 

administration of, and settlement of 

disputes concerning, all negotiated 

prime contract and subcontract 

procurements with the United States (41 

U.S.C. 1502(b)(1)(B) [formerly, 41 U.S.C. 

422(f)(2)(A)]). 

(2) There is not an accounting basis 

for the (b)(14) overseas exemption. The 

place of contract execution and 

performance is not germane to the 

fundamental requirements and practices 

set forth in CAS used to measure, 

assign, and allocate the costs of contract 

performance. 

(3) The CAS Board was not persuaded 

that the imposition of CAS in situations 

where the (b)(14) overseas had been 

applied would create hardships for 

Federal agencies, prime contractors, and 

subcontractors, particularly in view of 

mitigating factors. Foremost among 

these factors would be that a contractor 

would still have available the 

exemption at 48 CFR 9903.201–1(b)(4) 

which states ‘‘Contracts and 

subcontracts with foreign governments 

or their agents or instrumentalities or, 

insofar as the requirements of CAS other 

than 9904.401 and 9904.402 are 

concerned, any contract or subcontract 

awarded to a foreign concern.’’ In the 

CAS Board’s view, the imposition of 

CAS 401, ‘‘Consistency in Estimating, 

Accumulating and Reporting Costs,’’ 

and CAS 402, ‘‘Consistency in 

Allocating Costs Incurred for the Same 

Purpose,’’ are the minimal requirements 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

CAS. In the Board’s view, these minimal 

requirements are not substantively 

different from what is already imposed 

under the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR). 

C. Public Comments to the Notice of 

Proposed Rule 

In response to the NPR, the CAS 

Board received a total of five comments 

from a Federal agency, consultant, 

public interest group, and industry and 

trade associations. The comments, 

which were all considered by the Board 

in its deliberations, reflected a 

difference of views on whether to retain 

or eliminate the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption. They are summarized and 

addressed in this section, grouped by 

common themes. 

1. Comment: Two respondents 

supported the CAS Board’s proposed 

rule to eliminate the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption. 

Response: The CAS Board noted the 

agreement. 

2. Comment: One respondent believed 

that eliminating the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption will have a very narrow 

impact in terms of the number of foreign 

concerns which will become subject to 

the consistency requirements of CAS 

401 and 402, respectively, consistency 

in estimating, accumulating and 

reporting costs, and consistency in 

allocating costs incurred for the same 

purpose. Contract savvy foreign 

concerns will attempt to enter into 

contracts where another CAS exemption 

is applicable. To the contrary, another 

respondent opined that there is a 

misconception that some other CAS 

exemptions are applicable if the (b)(14) 

overseas exemption is eliminated. The 

respondent opined that the other CAS 

exemptions are of limited applicability, 

and that even the limited applicability 

of CAS 401 and 402 would be a 

deterrent to foreign concerns in 

accepting subcontracts to satisfy the 

U.S. contractors’ offset requirements. A 

greater deterrent to foreign concerns are 

the requirements to submit a CAS 

Disclosure Statement and notifications 

of changes in accounting practice with 

cost impact analyses. 

Response: The imposition of CAS 401 

and CAS 402 are not likely to be a 

hardship, since they are already 

substantively applied by the FAR. The 

threshold for submitting a CAS 

Disclosure Statement was significantly 

increased in 2000 to $50 million in 

recognition that this requirement should 

be applied to levels of contracting 

activity where a more formal disclosure 

was appropriate. 

3. Comment: One respondent noted 

that there is an obvious accounting basis 

for retaining the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption, specifically, the differences 

between the fundamental accounting 

principles between U.S. GAAP 

(Generally Accepted Accounting 

Principles) and IFRS (International 

Financial Reporting Standards). 

Response: The CAS Board does not 

believe differences between GAAP and 

IFRS are relevant to the question of 

extending the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption. 

4. Comment: Two respondents noted 

that the costs of CAS administration 

would exceed any benefits achieved 

from requiring CAS. One respondent 

noted that essentially no aspect of the 

CAS rulemaking during the past 37 

years has received any input from 

entities otherwise exempt from all CAS 

requirements. Another respondent 

noted that foreign concerns will have 

difficulty understanding and 

interpreting the CAS Disclosure 

Statement, which is published only in 

English. The respondent also noted that 

not only foreign concerns will have 

administrative costs in implementing 

and administering CAS for foreign 

concerns; the Government, and higher 

tier subcontractors and prime 

contractors with foreign concerns as 

subcontractors will also have 

administrative costs associated with 

administering the CAS Disclosure 

Statement process, as well as the cost 

impacts for cost accounting changes and 

CAS non-compliances. 

Response: For reasons previously 

discussed, the CAS Board does not agree 

that the administrative costs of 

essentially applying CAS 401 and CAS 

402 will exceed the benefits received by 

the taxpayers. There presently are 

foreign concerns, unable to take 

advantage of the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption, that are able to comply with 

the applicable requirements of CAS. 

Moreover, the same requirements are in 

the FAR. 

5. Comment: Two respondents raised 

concerns about an unintended 

consequence of imposing CAS on 

foreign concerns: the negative impact on 

exports which would result. The 

expressed concern was that the U.S. 

aerospace export sales would be 

endangered. The respondents stated that 

U.S. aerospace export sales have been 

enabled by the purchase of parts 

supplied by foreign concern 

subcontractors who are currently 

exempted from CAS, presumably by the 

(b)(14) overseas exemption. The 

respondents argued that contractors 

must satisfy offset requirements in order 

to make the sale to the foreign country. 

Offset requirements are host country 

industrial participation requirements 

imposed by the foreign host country as 

a condition of the contract. Contractors 

establish relationships with foreign 

subcontractors to develop potential 

offset placements to position themselves 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 49367 

for future contract awards for export 

sales. Such relationships are established 

and developed with strategic placement 

of subcontracts for contracts with the 

U.S. in anticipation of new export sales 

opportunities and related offset 

obligations. 

Response: Based on these comments, 

the CAS Board sought additional 

guidance on the matter of exports. 

Aerospace sales to foreign countries are 

made through either foreign military 

sales (FMS) contracts with the U.S. 

Government as the party to the contract 

with the contractor or contracts 

executed directly between the foreign 

host country and the U.S. contractor as 

a ‘‘commercial sale.’’ The CAS 

requirements are only imposed on sales 

to the U.S. Government (in this case, to 

the FMS contracts), and not on a 

commercial sale made directly with the 

foreign host country. U.S. Government 

funded FMS contracts do not have offset 

requirements, while foreign government 

funded FMS contracts may have offset 

requirements. In those instances when 

there are offset requirements in FMS 

contracts, the imposition of CAS 401 

and CAS 402, if applicable, are not 

likely to be a hardship, since they are 

already substantively applied by the 

FAR for subcontracts. See the responses 

to Comments 2 and 4. 

6. Comment: One respondent stated 

that the other CAS exemptions or 

applicability requirements are not 

applicable to foreign concerns, 

generally. Sealed bidding would not be 

effective for subcontracting to meet 

offset requirements where discussions 

are likely to be necessary. The CAS 

applicability threshold of $650,000 

(soon to be adjusted to $700,000) still 

leaves many foreign concern 

subcontractors subject to it. The small 

business exemption from CAS only 

applies to U.S. businesses. While 

contracts and subcontracts with foreign 

governments or their instrumentalities 

are exempted from CAS, other foreign 

concerns are still subject to CAS 401 

and 402, which would be a deterrent to 

foreign concerns accepting subcontracts 

to satisfy offset for U.S. contractors 

when they do not have CAS 

requirements for subcontracts with nonU.S. contractors. The larger deterrent for 

the larger subcontractors (who exceed 

the $50 million CAS Disclosure 

Statement filing threshold) is the 

Disclosure Statement filing requirement. 

The CAS exemption applicable when 

the price is set by law or regulation is 

irrelevant to foreign concern 

subcontracts for aerospace products. 

The CAS exemption for firm-fixed price 

(FFP) contracts, fixed price contracts 

with economic price adjustments, and 

contracts and subcontracts for 

commercial items has limited 

applicability. The CAS exemption for 

the NATO PHM Ship program has 

limited applicability, and is not 

germane to foreign concern subcontracts 

for aerospace products. The limited 

technical capabilities of the industrial 

bases of many countries with offset 

requirements make competition not 

tenable. Even in the most competitive 

emerging markets, i.e., India, South 

Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, 

competition in the award of 

subcontracts will be severely limited by 

the industrial base, limiting the 

applicability of the CAS exemption for 

FFP contracts and subcontracts awarded 

on the basis of adequate price 

competition without cost or pricing 

data. 

Response: Whether or not another 

CAS exemption might apply, aside from 

the previously discussed exemption at 

48 CFR 9903.201–1(b)(4), is not germane 

to the question of eliminating the (b)(14) 

overseas exemption. While it is likely 

that other exemptions might apply in 

certain situations, it is recognized that 

some exemptions would never apply. 

However, finding an alternative 

exemption that yields the same result as 

the (b)(14) overseas exemption is not the 

objective of this assessment. The 

relevant question is whether, given the 

absence of conditions which created the 

exemption in the first place, there are 

other sufficient reasons for retaining the 

exemption. As previously stated, the 

CAS Board has not been persuaded that 

there are other sufficient reasons for 

retaining the exemption. 

7. Comment: A respondent noted that 

the CAS waiver process is not suitable 

in the foreign concern subcontracting 

context. A CAS waiver must be 

requested by an agency, rather than the 

contractor, considering the needs of the 

agency with supporting justification 

from the perspective of the agency. The 

waiver process is not conducive to the 

offset obligations of the contractor as the 

offset requirement may be contrary to 

the requirement to establish other 

sources to avoid a waiver in the future. 

Response: The CAS Board agrees that 

the waiver process may be arduous. 

However, given that only CAS 401 and 

CAS 402 would be imposed in the 

absence of the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption, the CAS Board believes it is 

unlikely that a CAS waiver would be 

requested. 

8. Comment: A respondent opined 

that the impact from the elimination of 

the (b)(14) overseas exemption on 

foreign concern subcontractors is 

understated. The respondent stated the 

impact of eliminating (b)(14) overseas 

exemption will be most acute on foreign 

concern subcontractors, and the prime 

contractors and higher-tier 

subcontractors who have relied on the 

that exemption historically. Foreign 

concern subcontractor usage data is not 

readily available because there is no 

requirement to capture it. While 

everyone believes subcontractors will be 

affected, the scope of the impact is 

unknown. 

Response: The CAS Board 

understands that the visibility into 

subcontracting activities of a prime 

contractor is limited, particularly 

foreign concern subcontractors. The 

CAS Board notes that this condition has 

also been given as reasoning for 

eliminating the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption. As previously discussed, the 

CAS Board believes there will be 

mitigating factors that lessen the impact 

on foreign concern subcontractors. If 

this proves to be unfounded, then the 

CAS Board can reconsider the (b)(14) 

overseas exemption. 

9. Comment: Two respondents stated 

that the elimination of the (b)(14) 

overseas exemption is contrary to U.S. 

export and foreign economic 

development policies. There is a long 

standing belief that export of defense 

industry products benefit the US, and 

laws and regulations reflect that. NDAA 

FYs 1988 and 1989 (respectively, Pub. 

L. 100–202 and 100–456) made 

allowable the costs of promoting the 

export of US defense industry products. 

The March 11, 2010 Executive Order 

(EO) on the National Export Initiative 

established the Administration’s goal to 

double exports over the next five years 

as a critical component to stimulate 

economic growth in US. Elimination of 

exemption would create competitive 

disadvantages for U.S. firms attempting 

to grow export sales of defense industry 

products as exports are linked to offsets. 

A key element of Government policy in 

war torn and economically 

underdeveloped countries is to require 

prime contractors to subcontract with 

host foreign country subcontractors. 

Imposition of CAS ‘‘will likely shrink 

the local competitive landscape, stymie 

host country economic development, 

potentially harm project missions, and 

stress relations with foreign 

governments.’’ 

Response: The CAS Board does not 

accept the notion that eliminating the 

(b)(14) overseas exemption is contrary to 

U.S. export and foreign economic 

development policies. No one within 

the Legislative or Executive Branches 

has made that claim at any time during 

the rulemaking process. The CAS Board 

has not been persuaded that the burden 

imposed by CAS 401 and CAS 402, as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

49368 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

well as perhaps the CAS Disclosure 

Statement, will be significant. 

10. Comment: A respondent observed 

that the (b)(14) overseas exemption has 

not been identified as a cause for 

overseas subcontracting challenges in 

recent testimonies. On June 29, 2010, 

Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector 

General for Iraq Reconstruction, testified 

before the House Subcommittee on 

National Security and Foreign Affairs, 

and identified many subcontracting 

issues. However, he did not mention the 

(b)(14) overseas exemption from CAS as 

a cause for any of the issues, nor did he 

recommend the imposition of CAS 

coverage on foreign concern 

subcontracts as a potential solution. In 

the July 26, 2010 hearing on war zone 

subcontracting before the Commission 

on Wartime Contracting (CWC), none of 

the witnesses cited the (b)(14) overseas 

exemption from CAS as contributing to 

the subcontracting challenges identified 

during the hearings, nor did any witness 

recommend the imposition of CAS 

coverage as a solution to overseas 

subcontracting problems. None of the 

CWC commissioners spoke of, or 

inquired about, subcontractor CAS 

coverage or CAS compliance during 

opening statements or witness 

testimony. 

Response: The CAS Board does not 

accept this reasoning for retaining the 

(b)(14) overseas exemption. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I) does 

not apply to this rulemaking, because 

this rule imposes no additional 

paperwork burden on offerors, affected 

contractors and subcontractors, or 

members of the public which requires 

the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. The records required by 

this final rule are those normally 

maintained by contractors and 

subcontractors who claim 

reimbursement of costs under 

government contracts. 

E. Executive Order 12866, the 

Congressional Review Act, and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because the affected contractors and 

subcontractors are those who are 

already subject to CAS but for the 

(b)(14) overseas exemption, and those 

who are subject to only CAS 401 and 

402 under the (b)(4) foreign concern 

exemption, the economic impact of this 

final rule on contractors and 

subcontractors is expected to be minor. 

As a result, the CAS Board has 

determined that this final rule will not 

result in the promulgation of an 

‘‘economically significant rule’’ under 

the provisions of Executive Order 

12866, and that a regulatory impact 

analysis is not required. For the same 

reason, the Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has determined that this final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ under the Congressional 

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. chapter 8. Finally, 

this rule does not have a significant 

effect on a substantial number of small 

entities because small businesses are 

exempt from the application of the Cost 

Accounting Standards. Therefore, this 

final rule does not require a regulatory 

flexibility analysis under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 

chapter 6. 

F. List of Subjects in 48 CFR 9903 

Government procurement, Cost 

accounting standards. 

Daniel I. Gordon, 

Chair, Cost Accounting Standards Board. 

For the reasons set forth in this 

preamble, Chapter 99 of Title 48 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as set forth below: 

PART 9903—COST ACCOUNTING 

STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 9903 

is amended to read as follows: 

Authority: Public Law 111–350, 124 Stat. 

3677, 41 U.S.C. 1502. 

9903.201–1 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 9903.201–1 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(14). 

[FR Doc. 2011–20212 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 110112022–1262–02] 

RIN 0648–BA45 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Modification of the Retention of 

Incidentally-Caught Highly Migratory 

Species in Atlantic Trawl Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule modifies the 

permitting requirements and retention 

limits for Atlantic highly migratory 

species (HMS) that are incidentallycaught in Atlantic trawl fisheries. This 

action will reduce regulatory dead 

discards of incidentally-caught Atlantic 

swordfish in the Illex squid trawl 

fishery by establishing a new Incidental 

HMS Squid Trawl permit for all valid 

Illex squid moratorium permit holders. 

The Incidental HMS Squid Trawl permit 

will allow up to 15 swordfish per trip 

to be retained. The final rule also 

establishes a retention limit for 

smoothhound sharks in all Atlantic 

trawl fisheries. These actions are 

necessary to achieve domestic 

management objectives under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and to 

implement the 2006 Consolidated HMS 

Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated 

HMS FMP), including objectives in the 

FMP to monitor and control all 

components of fishing mortality, both 

directed and incidental, so as to ensure 

the long-term sustainability of HMS 

stocks, and to provide the data 

necessary for assessing HMS fish stocks 

and managing HMS, including 

addressing inadequacies in current data 

collection and the ongoing collection of 

economic and bycatch data in Atlantic 

HMS fisheries. 

DATES: Effective August 10, 2011, except 

for the amendments to § 635.21(e)(3)(i), 

§ 635.24(a)(7), and § 635.71(d)(18), 

which are delayed indefinitely. NMFS 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective dates 

for this amendments. 

ADDRESSES: Highly Migratory Species 

Management Division, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Copies of the supporting documents— 

including the Environmental 

Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR), Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), small entity 

compliance guide, and the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic HMSFMP—are 

available from the HMS Web site at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted to the HMS 

Management Division (see above) and 

by e-mail to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax 

to (202) 395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick 

Pearson at (727) 824–5399, Steve Durkee 

at (202) 670–6637, or Delisse Ortiz at 

(301) 427–8503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: North 

Atlantic swordfish and smoothhound 

shark species are managed under the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES