38776 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the North-South 1⁄4 line of said Section,

1310.21 feet to the centerline of Lake

Lansing Road and to the point of

beginning; thence S 48°58′00′′ W, along

the centerline of Lake Lansing Road,

9.46 feet; thence S 89°46′42′′ W, along

the North line of the Plat of Park Manor

Heights, 224,75 feet; thence N 18°44′17′′

100.00 feet; thence N 08°10′31′′ W, 7097

feet; thence N 02°35′23′′ W, 379.08 feet;

thence N 88°30′21′′ E, 291.32 feet;

thence S 00°00′01′′ E, along the NorthSouth 1⁄4 line of said section, 544.16 feet

to the point of beginning; said parcel

contains the 3.45 acres of land which is

intended for deletion.

The ROD, based on information

provided in the Remedial Investigation

(RI), included a provision for the

collection and treatment of

contaminated groundwater from an onsite perched aquifer and from the glacial

aquifer below and in the near vicinity of

the Site. The ROD also indicated the

potential for additional remediation to

address any contamination which may

have entered the bedrock aquifer.

A special notice letter was issued to

the PRP’s on December 10, 1991. The

negotiations which followed the PRP’s

good faith offer, resulted in an

agreement to proceed with a Remedial

Design (RD) under an Administrative

Order on Consent (May 26, 1992); a

letter of intent from PRP’s to enter into

the negotiated Remedial Action (RA)

Consent Decree; and extension of the

moratorium to accommodate the

Respondents desire to resolve internal

allocation issues through arbitration

prior to signing the Consent Decree.

This agreement also included the PRP’s

declared intention to continue

investigation of water quality in the

bedrock aquifer and to address

contamination in the bedrock aquifer, if

any, in this action. The RA Consent

Decree was entered April 22, 1994.

Groundwater investigations

conducted in conjunction with predesign studies indicated a more

extensive area of groundwater

contamination within the glacial aquifer

extending about 7200 feet down

gradient from the Site and geologic

conditions which showed a potential

pathway for migration of contaminants

from the glacial to the bedrock aquifer.

An additional investigation of water

quality in the bedrock aquifer was also

a part of the predesign study. Results of

this investigation summarized in The

Investigation of the Saginaw Aquifer at

the Motor Wheel Disposal Site,

November 1996 indicated that levels of

some site related contaminants in the

bedrock aquifer exceed drinking water

standards. On the basis of this

information the design of the

groundwater collection and treatment

system was expanded to accommodate

the expected volume from the bedrock

aquifer. The RI did not show

contaminated groundwater beneath the

3.45 acres.

The RD conducted in accordance with

the ROD and the approved RD Work

Plan was approved by EPA and the RA

was formally initiated by PRP

contractors July 25, 1997. All remedial

activities were conducted as planned.

EPA and the State conducted pre-final

inspections. The inspection report

includes a description and a schedule

for correcting minor construction items

by the PRP contractor. EPA and the

State determined that the following RA

activities were completed according to

ROD design specifications:

• Construction of an engineered cap

which meets applicable or relevant and

appropriate requirements over the onsite waste disposal area;

• Construction of an extraction and

collection system to contain

groundwater in the perched, glacial and

bedrock aquifers which contain site

related hazardous constituents;

• Construction of an on-site facility

for treatment of contaminated

groundwater; and

• Construction of a main system for

discharge of treated groundwater.

The groundwater extraction and

treatment system began operation

November 20, 1997 and is scheduled to

continue until cleanup standards have

been achieved.

V. Action

EPA, with the State of Michigan

concurrence, has determined that no

responses are necessary at the 3.45 acres

which comprise a portion of the Motor

Wheel Disposal Site, and no further

CERCLA response is appropriate or

necessary in order to provide protection

of human health and the environment

other than the ongoing inspection,

maintenance and monitoring activities.

Therefore, EPA is deleting that portion

of the Site which is comprised of 3.45

acres from the NPL.

This action will be effective August

21, 2000. However, if EPA receives

dissenting comments by July 24, 2000,

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of

the rule in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: June 7, 2000.

Robert Springer,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Part 300, Title 40 of Chapter 1 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; 33 U.S.C.

1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp.; p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p.193.

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300

is amended by removing the entry for

Motor Wheel, Inc., Lansing, MI.

[FR Doc. 00–15388 Filed 6–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1815, 1816, 1819, 1831,

and 1852

Miscellaneous Administrative

Revisions to the NASA FAR

Supplement

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to revise

numbering and ombudsman information

as a result of FAC 97–17; revises

regulations to indicate that award fee

determinations are no longer exempt

from the Disputes clause as a result of

FAC 97–15; revises regulations to

indicate that precontract costs are

applicable to awards resulting from

broad agency announcements; and

makes an editorial correction to other

regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Celeste Dalton, NASA Headquarters

Office of Procurement, Contract

Management Division (Code HK),

Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–1645,

e-mail: celeste.dalton@hq.nasa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

FAC 97–17, dated April 25, 2000,

revised FAR 16.504 and 16.505,

including the requirement to identify

the facsimile and e-mail address of

agency task and delivery ombudsman.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 38777

This final rule revises numbering within

NFS 1815, 1816, 1819, and 1852 to

reflect the FAC 97–17 changes and

update the agency ombudsman

information. This final rule also revises

sections 1852.216–76 and 1852.216–77

to indicate that award fee

determinations are no longer exempt

from the Disputes clause as a result of

FAC 97–15. Changes unrelated to FAC

97–15 and 97–17 are made to allow

precontract costs for awards resulting

from broad agency announcements

(BAA). The use of precontract costs is

currently allowed for sole source

contracts, except those resulting in firm

fixed-price or fixed-price contracts.

Contracts awarded under BAAs are

considered competitive based on FAR

6.102(d). However, the award process

for BAAs is similar to that for sole

source awards since negotiations with

the contractor occurs after source

selection, rather than prior to selection

in the normal competitive contract

award process. Because of the selection

process under BAAs, it is reasonable to

allow the approval of precontract costs.

Additionally, an editorial change is

made to correct the title of paragraph

(i)(3) to section 1815.370.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NASA certifies that this rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small business

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because it does

not impose any new requirements.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because the changes to the

NFS do not impose any recordkeeping

or 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 1815,

1816, 1819, 1831, and 1852

Government procurement.

Tom Luedtke,

Associate Administrator for Procurement.

Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1815, 1816,

1819, 1831, and 1852 are amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Parts 1815, 1816, 1819, 1831, and 1852

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1)

PART 1815—CONTRACTING BY

NEGOTIATION

2. In section 1815.370, revise the title

of paragraph (i)(3) to read as follows:

1815.370 NASA source evaluation boards.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(3) Evaluation factors and subfactors.

***

* * * * *

3. Revise section 1815.7003 to read as

follows:

1815.7003 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert a

clause substantially the same as the one

at 1852.215–84, Ombudsman, in all

solicitations (including draft

solicitations) and contracts. Use the

clause with its Alternate I when a task

or delivery order contract is

contemplated.

PART 1816—TYPES OF CONTRACTS

4. Amend section 1816.504 by adding

paragraph (a)(4)(v) to read as follows:

1816.504 Indefinite quantity contracts.

* * * * *

(a)(4)(v) See 1815.7003.

5. Amend section 1816.505 by

redesignating paragraph (b)(6) as (b)(5).

PART 1819—SMALL BUSINESS

PROGRAMS

6. Amend paragraph (f)(1) in section

1819.201 by removing the words

‘‘Deputy Associate Administrator for

Procurement (Code H)’’ and inserting

the words ‘‘Director of the Contract

Management Division (Code HK)’’ in its

place.

PART 1831—CONTRACT COST

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

7. In section 1831.205–32, revise

paragraph (1) to read as follows:

1831.205–32 Precontract costs.

(1) Precontract costs are applicable

only to—

(i) Sole source awards, except those

resulting in firm-fixed price or fixedprice with economic price adjustment

contracts; or

(ii) Awards resulting from broad

agency announcements.

* * * * *

PART 1852—SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT

CLAUSES

8. In section 1852.215–84, revise the

clause and add Alternate I to read as

follows:

1852.215–84 Ombudsman.

* * * * *

Ombudsman

June 2000

(a) An ombudsman has been appointed to

hear and facilitate the resolution of concerns

from offerors, potential offerors, and

contractors during the preaward and

postaward phases of this acquisition. When

requested, the ombudsman will maintain

strict confidentiality as to the source of the

concern. The existence of the ombudsman is

not to diminish the authority of the

contracting officer, the Source Evaluation

Board, or the selection official. Further, the

ombudsman does not participate in the

evaluation of proposals, the source selection

process, or the adjudication of formal

contract disputes. Therefore, before

consulting with an ombudsman, interested

parties must first address their concerns,

issues, disagreements, and/or

recommendations to the contracting officer

for resolution.

(b) If resolution cannot be made by the

contracting officer, interested parties may

contact the installation ombudsman,

llllll [Insert name, address,

telephone number, facsimile number, and email address]. Concerns, issues,

disagreements, and recommendations which

cannot be resolved at the installation may be

referred to the NASA ombudsman, the

Director of the Contract Management

Division, at 202–358–0422, facsimile 202–

358–3083, e-mail sthomps1@hq.nasa.gov.

Please do not contact the ombudsman to

request copies of the solicitation, verify offer

due date, or clarify technical requirements.

Such inquiries shall be directed to the

Contracting Officer or as specified elsewhere

in this document.

(End of clause)

Alternate I

June 2000

As prescribed in 1815.7003, insert the

following paragraph (c):

(c) If this is a task or delivery order

contract, the ombudsman shall review

complaints from contractors and ensure they

are afforded a fair opportunity to be

considered, consistent with the procedures of

the contract.

9. In section 1852.216–76, revise the

date of the clause; remove the last

sentence of paragraph (f)(3); and revise

paragraph (g) to read as follows:

1852.216–76 Award Fee for service

contracts.

* * * * *

Award Fee for Service Contracts

June 2000

* * * * *

(g) Award fee determinations are

unilateral decisions made solely at the

discretion of the Government.

* * * * *

10. In section 1852.216–77 revise the

date of the clause; delete the last

sentence of paragraph (c)(3); and revise

paragraph (d) to read as follows:

38778 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1852.216–77 Award Fee for end item

contracts.

* * * * *

Award Fee for End Item Contracts

June 2000

* * * * *

(d) Award fee determinations are

unilateral decisions made solely at the

discretion of the Government.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–15349 Filed 6–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 216, 223, and 224

[Docket No. 000613174–0174–01; I.D.

032399A]

RIN 0648–XA53

Regulations Governing the Taking and

Importing of Marine Mammals;

Endangered and Threatened Fish and

Wildlife; Cook Inlet Beluga Whales

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of determination; status

review.

SUMMARY: NMFS received two petitions

in March 1999 to list the Cook Inlet (CI),

Alaska, stock beluga whales as

endangered under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). The most immediate

threat to the stock identified by the

petitioners was the high level of harvest

that was occurring under the Alaska

Native exemption of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Since

the receipt of the petition to list this

species, legislative and management

actions have been taken to reduce the

subsistence harvest to levels that will

allow the beluga whale stock to recover.

NMFS has evaluated the factors cited in

the petitions, the best available

scientific information, and management

actions that have occurred since the

receipt of the petition to list the stock.

NMFS has determined that listing the

Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales under

the ESA is not warranted at this time.

DATE: Effective: June 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this

determination should be addressed to

the Chief, Marine Mammal Division,

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring,

Maryland 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Thomas Eagle, Office of Protected

Resources, (301) 713–2322, ext. 105, Mr.

Brad Smith, Alaska Regional OfficeAnchorage, (907) 271–3023, or Mr.

Michael Payne, Alaska Regional OfficeJuneau, (907) 586–7235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Prompted by a sharp decline in the

estimated abundance of CI beluga

whales between 1994 (653 animals) and

1998 (347 animals), a reduction of

nearly 50 percent, NMFS initiated a

status review of the CI beluga whale

stock on November 19, 1998 (63 FR

64228). In the status review, NMFS

evaluated the present status of CI beluga

whales and made recommendations

regarding a designation as depleted

under the MMPA and listing as

threatened or endangered under the

ESA.

The comment period on the status

review, which was initiated at the same

time that workshops were convened to

review beluga whale stocks throughout

Alaska, extended from November 19,

1998, through January 19, 1999. The

workshops were held by the Alaska

Beluga Whale Committee (November

16–17, 1998) and the Alaska Scientific

Review Group (November 18–20, 1998),

a body established under the MMPA to

provide scientific advice regarding

marine mammals to NMFS and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

NMFS received two petitions in

March 1999 to list CI beluga whales as

endangered under the ESA. One petition

requested an emergency listing under

section 4(b)(7) of the ESA and the

designation of critical habitat. Both

petitions requested immediate

promulgation of regulations to govern

the subsistence harvest. NMFS

determined that the petitions contained

substantial scientific or commercial

information indicating that the

petitioned actions may be warranted (64

FR 17347, April 9, 1999).

To ensure that the status review was

comprehensive and based on the best

available scientific information, the

comment period was followed by a

NMFS-sponsored workshop on March

8–9, 1999, in Anchorage, Alaska, that

reviewed relevant scientific information

on this stock. At this workshop, NMFS

received additional public comments

and recommendations. The abstracts of

presentations from this workshop are

summarized in a NMFS report (NMFS,

1999) and are available to the public.

Following these reviews and taking

into account the best information

available at that time, NMFS proposed

designating the CI stock of beluga

whales as depleted on October 19, 1999

(64 FR 56298). NMFS also conducted a

public hearing on November 22, 1999,

on the proposed designation of the CI

stock of beluga whales as depleted

under the MMPA. NMFS issued a final

rule on May 31, 2000, (65 FR 34590)

designating CI beluga whales as

depleted under the MMPA based on its

determination that the stock is below its

Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP)

level.

NMFS had not made a final decision

on the ESA petitions at the time of the

depleted determination. The ESA

petitions have now been reviewed in

light of the best available scientific

information. This review considered the

significant legislative and management

actions that have occurred since NMFS

received the petitions.

Recent Conservation Actions

Prior to the receipt of the petitions,

NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected

Resources Division, recommended to

the Regional Administrator (in a

memorandum dated February 23, 1999)

that NMFS seek legislative action to

prohibit the sale of CI beluga products

under the subsistence provisions of the

MMPA and/or impose a moratorium on

the hunting of CI beluga whales in 1999.

The recommendation included advice

that NMFS designate the stock as

depleted under the MMPA or list it as

threatened or endangered under the

ESA. These recommendations were

based on the then unsustainable level of

the subsistence harvest and the fact that

no regulations were in place to restrict

the harvest because the harvest was

believed to be the most important factor

linked to the decline of the stock. The

MMPA and ESA provide a specific

process for limiting Alaska Native

subsistence harvest. This process begins

with the designation of a stock as

depleted under the MMPA or listing as

threatened or endangered under the

ESA.

Results of the 1998 surveys were not

completed at the date of the Division’s

memorandum. Because the stock was

declining and there was no immediate

mechanism to limit the harvest, the

Protected Resources Division

recommended that NMFS consider a

proposed listing under the ESA.

The following events had a significant

bearing on NMFS’ determination not to

list CI beluga whales as endangered or

threatened under the ESA:

(1) Congress passed legislation to

prohibit the taking of CI beluga whales

for Native subsistence use unless

authorized by a cooperative agreement

between NMFS and affected Alaska

Native organizations (ANOs). On May