60690 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

Bill Luthans, 

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24572 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 216 and 252 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS); 

Electronic Ordering Procedures 

(DFARS Case 2009–D037) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement to address 

electronic business procedures for 

placing orders. 

DATES: Comment date: Comments on 

this proposed rule should be submitted 

in writing to the address shown below 

on or before November 30, 2010, to be 

considered in the formation of the final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by DFARS Case 2009–D037, 

using any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2009–D037 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Fax: 703–602–0350. 

Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Attn: Mr. Julian E. Thrash, 

OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), Room 

3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

To confirm receipt of your 

comment(s), please check http:// 

www.regulations.gov approximately two 

to three days after submission to verify 

posting (except allow 30 days for 

posting of comments submitted by 

mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Julian E. Thrash, 703–602–0310. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

DoD is proposing to add language to 

the DFARS to make electronic 

distribution procedures a routine part of 

order issuance. This case establishes a 

standard method for issuance of orders 

via electronic means. DoD currently has 

the capability to distribute orders 

electronically on a routine basis, and 

can post those orders centrally to a site 

any contractor can access. 

DoD is proposing the following 

changes: 

• Add the prescription at DFARS 

216.506(a) to require a new clause 

252.216–70XX, Ordering, in lieu of the 

clause at FAR 52.216–18, Ordering, in 

solicitations and contracts when a 

definite-quantity contract, a 

requirements contract, or an indefinitequantity contract is contemplated; and 

• Add a new clause at DFARS 

252.216–70XX, Ordering. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This change may have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq. 

DoD has prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis consistent with 5 

U.S.C. 603. A copy of the analysis may 

be obtained from the point of contact 

specified herein. The objective of this 

rule is that, as the DoD now has the 

capability to distribute orders 

electronically on a routine basis and can 

post those orders centrally to a Web site 

that any contractor can access, the 

DFARS needs to provide language that 

will make those procedures a routine 

part of contract issuance. This rule will 

enable DoD to further the goals of the E– 

Government Act of 2002. 

For Fiscal Year 2009, DoD made 

awards to 6,097 small business-unique 

Data Universal Numbering System 

(DUNS) numbers using the clause at 

FAR 52.216–18, Ordering. The benefit of 

this rule to small business is that it will 

make electronic distribution procedures 

a routine part of order issuance. This 

change will ultimately help improve the 

management and promotion of 

electronic Government services and 

processes, and establish a framework to 

improve public access to Government 

information and services. DoD invites 

comments from small business concerns 

and other interested parties on the 

expected impact of this rule on small 

entities. 

DoD will also consider comments 

from small entities concerning the 

existing regulations in subparts affected 

by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

610. Interested parties must submit such 

comments separately and should cite 5 

U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2009–D037) in 

correspondence. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the rule does not 

impose any information collection 

requirements that require the approval 

of the Office of Management and Budget 

under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 216 and 

252 

Government procurement. 

Ynette R. Shelkin, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 

CFR parts 216 and 252 as follows: 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 216 and 252 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

PART 216—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 

2. Amend section 216.506 by adding 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

216.506 Solicitation provisions and 

contract clauses. 

(a) Insert the clause at 252.216–70XX, 

Ordering, in lieu of the clause at FAR 

52.216–18, in solicitations and contracts 

when a definite-quantity contract, a 

requirements contract, or an indefinitequantity contract is contemplated. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

3. Add section 252.216—70XX to read 

as follows: 

252.216–70XX Ordering. 

As prescribed in 216.506(a), use the 

following clause: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60691 

ORDERING (DATE) 

(a) Any supplies and services to be 

furnished under this contract shall be 

ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task 

orders by the individuals or activities 

designated in the contract schedule. Such 

orders may be issued from llllll 

through llllll (Insert dates). 

(b) All delivery orders or task orders are 

subject to the terms and conditions of this 

contract. In the event of conflict between a 

delivery order or task order and this contract, 

the contract shall control. 

(c)(1) If issued electronically, the order is 

considered ‘‘issued’’ when a copy has been 

posted to the Electronic Document Access 

system, and notice has been sent to the 

Contractor. 

(2) If mailed or transmitted by facsimile, a 

delivery order or task order is considered 

‘‘issued’’ when the Government deposits the 

order in the mail or transmits by facsimile. 

Mailing includes transmittal by U.S. mail or 

private delivery services. 

(3) Orders may be issued orally only if 

authorized in the schedule. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. 2010–24386 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0037] 

[91200-1232-0000] 

RIN 1018-AX24 

Migratory Bird Permits; Revisions to 

the Waterfowl Permit Exceptions and 

Waterfowl Sale and Disposal Permits 

Regulations for Muscovy Ducks 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, propose to revise the 

regulations regarding permit provisions 

for waterfowl. Specifically, we propose 

to revise certain permit provisions for 

the muscovy duck (Cairina moschata) at 

50 CFR 21.14, 21.25, and 21.54. We take 

this action to address public concerns 

resulting from a final rule we published 

on March 1, 2010 (75 FR 9316), that 

revised the regulations for the muscovy 

duck. We request comments from the 

public on these proposed changes to the 

regulations. 

DATES: Send comments on this proposal 

on or before December 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0037. 

• U.S. Mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9- 

MB-2010-0037; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203- 

1610. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information that you provide. See the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

George T. Allen, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 703-358-1825. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The muscovy duck is native to 

Mexico, and Central and South 

America. However, the species has 

recently expanded its range into 

Hidalgo, Starr, and Zapata Counties in 

south Texas. As a result of this natural 

expansion into the United States, on 

March 1, 2010, we published a final rule 

(75 FR 9282) adding the muscovy duck 

(Cairina moschata) to the List of 

Migratory Birds protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 

U.S.C. 703–12). 

The muscovy duck has been 

introduced through human intervention 

to many parts of the United States. 

These feral muscovy ducks may appear 

much different than the muscovy duck 

in its native range, but biologically they 

are still Cairina moschata, and thus are 

accorded the protection of the MBTA. 

To reduce the spread of muscovy ducks 

in the wild, 50 CFR 21.14(g) prohibits 

the release of captive-reared muscovy 

ducks to the wild. 

On March 1, 2010, we also published 

a final rule that, among other things, 

established a control order to manage 

feral populations (75 FR 9316). The 

control order at 50 CFR 21.54 allows 

landowners and Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local wildlife management agencies, 

and their tenants, employees, or agents, 

to remove or destroy muscovy ducks 

(including hybrids of muscovy ducks), 

their nests, and eggs, anywhere outside 

their natural range, without a Federal 

migratory bird permit. Any muscovy 

duck removed live under this order 

must be: (1) placed with a facility where 

it will be maintained under conditions 

that will prevent its escape to the wild, 

(2) donated to public museums or 

public institutions for scientific or 

educational purposes, or (3) euthanized 

and disposed of by burying or 

incineration. 

In that March 1, 2010, final rule (75 

FR 9316), we also amended the 

regulations at 50 CFR 21 to prohibit 

sale, transfer, or propagation of muscovy 

ducks for hunting and any other 

purpose other than for sale as food. This 

action required revision of regulations 

governing permit exceptions for captivereared migratory waterfowl other than 

mallard ducks and governing waterfowl 

sale and disposal permits, as well as the 

addition of the control order described 

above. We also rewrote the affected 

regulations to make them easier to 

understand. 

After that final rule (75 FR 9316) was 

published, we were contacted by many 

individuals concerned about provisions 

in the rule that prohibit long-established 

muscovy duck activities, particularly 

keeping the ducks for exhibition, or as 

barnyard animals for personal 

consumption and egg production (rather 

than for sale as food). This document 

proposes changes to the regulations to 

address these concerns. 

Specific Proposed Changes to 50 CFR 

21.14 

In 50 CFR 21.14, we would remove 

the requirement that muscovy ducks 

may not be acquired, possessed, 

propagated, sold, or transferred, except 

for sale as food. We would add the 

following provisions to the regulations: 

• You do not need a permit to acquire, 

possess, or sell properly-marked, 

captive-reared muscovy ducks or 

their eggs; 

• You may not release muscovy ducks to 

the wild or to any location used by 

wild ducks; and 

• You may not sell or distribute 

muscovy ducks as pets. Muscovy 

ducks have been sold as pets and 

given as prizes, activities we intend 

to disallow. However, we do not 

consider muscovy show ducks to be 

pets. 

When we published the proposed rule 

to change the regulations for muscovy 

ducks on August 22, 2008 (73 FR 

49626), we were unaware that muscovy 

ducks are kept as barnyard animals, for 

consumption by their owners, and for 

egg production. We were not made 

aware of these issues until after our 

March 1, 2010, final rule was published 

(75 FR 9316). The changes we are 

proposing in this document would 

allow the continued keeping and 

production of muscovy ducks that were 

restricted by the March 1, 2010 final 

rule. We expect that these proposed 

regulations changes would have a very 

minimal impact on populations of wild 

ducks, and would facilitate 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS