Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 40753

(2) In the event that the contractor was

aware of facts required to be disclosed or the

existence of an actual or potential

organizational conflict of interest and did not

disclose such facts or such conflict of interest

to the contracting officer, DOE may terminate

this contract for default.

(d) Remedies. For breach of any of the

above restrictions or for nondisclosure or

misrepresentation of any facts required to be

disclosed concerning this contract, including

the existence of an actual or potential

organizational conflict of interest at the time

of or after award, the Government may

terminate the contract for default, disqualify

the contractor from subsequent related

contractual efforts, and pursue such other

remedies as may be permitted by law or this

contract.

(e) Waiver. Requests for waiver under this

clause shall be directed in writing to the

contracting officer and shall include a full

description of the requested waiver and the

reasons in support thereof. If it is determined

to be in the best interests of the Government,

the contracting officer may grant such a

waiver in writing.

(End of clause)

ALTERNATE I: In accordance with

909.507–2 and 970.0905, include the

following alternate in the specified types of

contracts.

(f) Subcontracts. (1) The contractor shall

include a clause, substantially similar to this

clause, including this paragraph (f), in

subcontracts expected to exceed the

simplified acquisition threshold determined

in accordance with FAR Part 13 and

involving the performance of advisory and

assistance services as that term is defined at

FAR 37.201. The terms ‘‘contract,’’

‘‘contractor,’’ and ‘‘contracting officer’’ shall

be appropriately modified to preserve the

Government’s rights.

(2) Prior to the award under this contract

of any such subcontracts for advisory and

assistance services, the contractor shall

obtain from the proposed subcontractor or

consultant the disclosure required by DEAR

909.507–1, and shall determine in writing

whether the interests disclosed present an

actual or significant potential for an

organizational conflict of interest. Where an

actual or significant potential organizational

conflict of interest is identified, the

contractor shall take actions to avoid,

neutralize, or mitigate the organizational

conflict to the satisfaction of the contractor.

If the conflict cannot be avoided or

neutralized, the contractor must obtain the

approval of the DOE contracting officer prior

to entering into the subcontract.

(End of alternate)

PART 970—DOE MANAGEMENT AND

OPERATING CONTRACTS

7. The authority citation for part 970

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 161 of the Atomic Energy

Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201), sec. 644 of the

Department of Energy Organization Act,

Public Law 95–91 (42 U.S.C. 7254).

8. Section 970.0905 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 970.0905 Organizational conflicts of

interest.

Management and operating contracts

shall contain an organizational conflict

of interest clause substantially similar to

the clause at 48 CFR 952.209–72 and

appropriate to the statement of work of

the individual contract. In addition, the

contracting officer shall assure that the

clause contains appropriate restraints on

intra-corporate relations between the

contractor’s organization and personnel

operating the Department’s facility and

its parent corporate body and affiliates,

including personnel access to the

facility, technical transfer of information

from the facility, and the availability

from the facility of other advantages

flowing from performance of the

contract. The Contracting Officer is

responsible for ensuring that M&O

contractors adopt policies and

procedures in the award of subcontracts

that will meet the Department’s need to

safeguard against a biased work product

and an unfair competitive advantage. To

this end, the organizational conflicts of

interest clause in the management and

operating contract shall include

Alternate I.

9. Subsection 970.5204–44 is

amended by revising clause paragraph

(b)(15) to read as follows:

§ 970.5204–44 Flowdown of contract

requirements to subcontracts.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(15) Organizational Conflicts of

Interest. Clause at 48 CFR (DEAR)

952.209–72 in accordance with 48 CFR

(DEAR) 970.0905.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–20022 Filed 7–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 300

(Docket No. ; I.D. 021197C)

International Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fisheries; Implementation

Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final implementation

plan.

SUMMARY: On July 25, 1996, NMFS

announced the availability of a Draft

Implementation Plan for the Code of

Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

(Implementation Plan) in the Federal

Register and requested comments by

September 23, 1996. At the close of this

period, it became clear that several of

the public comments raised substantive

issues. During the same period, two

other relevant developments took place.

First, in October 1996, the Congress

passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act

(SFA) which contained numerous and

significant amendments to the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act; and,

second, NOAA/NMFS moved into the

final and substantive phase of its longterm program planning exercise, the

NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan

(Strategic Plan).

The requirements of the SFA and the

Strategic Plan point in the same

directions as the Code of Conduct. In

effect, NMFS will implement the Code

of Conduct domestically as it carries out

its Congressionally mandated

responsibilities and the objectives of the

Strategic Plan. Accordingly, NMFS

redrafted the Implementation Plan,

taking into account (1) the comments

received on the first draft; (2) the

guidance provided by Congress in the

SFA; and (3) the long-term program

planning that was being developed

through the Strategic Plan.

The revised Implementation Plan was

made available for public comment in a

Federal Register notice on March 12,

1997 (62 FR 11410), and comments were

requested by April 28, 1997. The public

may request a copy of the final plan (see

ADDRESSES) or access it on the NMFS

home page at http://www.nmfs.gov.

ADDRESSES: Questions regarding this

document may be directed to Matteo

Milazzo, International Fisheries

Division, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matteo Milazzo, 3O1–713–2276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

background and rationale for the

Implementation Plan, please refer to the

notices of availability published on July

25, 1996 (61 FR 38703) and March 12,

1997

(62 FR 11410).

Comments and Responses

Five written comments were received

regarding the proposed Implementation

Plan. All were generally supportive of

the Implementation Plan but made

specific suggestions about various of its

provisions. Specific comments and

responses are given below:

Comment: One response urged that

the Implementation Plan should be
40754 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

actively supported and implemented by

all the Federal and state agencies

involved in marine fisheries and

recommended that NMFS strive to

include these agencies and upgrade the

document from an NMFS to a United

States Government Implementation

Plan.

Response: NMFS has determined that,

since it is the Federal agency

responsible for marine fisheries, it is

appropriate at this time for NMFS to

take the lead in implementation of the

Code of Conduct for Responsible

Fisheries and move forward with its

Implementation Plan. At the same time,

NMFS will work closely with other

Federal, state, and local agencies on

various elements of the Implementation

Plan, as noted in the Implementation

Plan. The intent to collaborate closely

with these other government agencies,

especially with respect to fisheries

management, marine aquaculture,

international fisheries agreements, and

trade is stressed in the Implementation

Plan.

Comment: One response

recommended that the treatment of

aquaculture be more detailed,

proactively developmental, less

regulatory, and more specific about

resources that NMFS can make available

in this area.

Response: The final Implementation

Plan’s treatment of aquaculture reflects

the fact that, in April 1997, the Strategic

Plan was approved, with a significantly

modified section on marine aquaculture

development. Therefore, the revised

Implementation Plan includes more

specific information regarding the

NMFS marine aquaculture objective: To

promote robust and environmentally

sound aquaculture.

Comment: One comment was critical

of the prominence assigned to

individual transferable quotas (ITQs) as

a means to deal effectively with

overfishing and overcapitalization.

Response: NMFS believes that ITQs

are a potentially useful management

tool. However, largely in view of the fact

that the SFA mandates that the National

Academy of Sciences conduct a study of

their effectiveness, NMFS agreed to

identify ITQs as a type of limited entry

in the revised Implementation Plan.

Comment: Some comments noted that

the Implementation Plan generally dealt

more with goals than with the specific

means to reach those goals and

suggested that it should be more

forthcoming about particular action

steps.

Response: In some instances, it was

felt that the comment had some validity,

and the Implementation Plan was

modified. As examples, the treatments

of aquaculture, recreational fisheries,

and the agency’s obligations under the

Convention for International Trade in

Endangered Species and the Endangered

Species Act are stated with greater

specificity. More generally, an entirely

new section was added to the end of the

Implementation Plan, ‘‘Implementation

Steps,’’ that details the agency’s resolve

to work with all our constituencies,

mainly through the regional Fishery

Management Councils, to develop

specific implementation plans on

certain issues. On the other hand, NMFS

is presently unable to spell out precise

action steps in all areas for a variety of

reasons, including the needs to

complete Congressionally mandated

studies, and to await future

appropriation decisions.

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

Dated: July 21, 1997.

David Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–20042 Filed 7–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 961126334–7052–02; I.D.

072397A]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; ‘‘Other Rockfish’’

Species Group in the Western

Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting retention

of the ‘‘other rockfish’’ species group in

the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf

of Alaska (GOA). NMFS is requiring that

catch of the ‘‘other rockfish’’ species

group in this area be treated in the same

manner as prohibited species and

discarded at sea with a minimum of

injury. This action is necessary because

the ‘‘other rockfish’’ species group 1997

total allowable catch (TAC) in this area

has been reached.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), July 25, 1997, until 2400

hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Furuness, 907–586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive

economic zone is managed by NMFS

according to the Fishery Management

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. Fishing by U.S.

vessels is governed by regulations

implementing the FMP at subpart H of

50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 1997 TAC of the ‘‘other rockfish’’

species group in the Western Regulatory

Area of the GOA was established by the

Final 1997 Harvest Specifications of

Groundfish for the GOA (62 FR 8179,

February 24, 1997) as 20 metric tons

(mt). See § 679.20(c)(3)(ii).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the

Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS,

has determined that the 1997 TAC for

the ‘‘other rockfish’’ species group in

the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA

has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is

requiring that further catches of the

‘‘other rockfish’’ species group in the

Western Regulatory Area of the GOA be

treated as prohibited species in

accordance with § 679.21(b).

Classification

This action responds to the best

available information recently obtained

from the fishery. It must be

implemented immediately to prevent

overharvesting the 1997 TAC for the

‘‘other rockfish’’ species group in the

Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

Providing an opportunity for prior

notice and comment would be

impracticable and contrary to public

interest. The fleet has already taken the

directed fishing allowance for the ‘‘other

rockfish’’ species group. Further delay

would only result in overharvest and

disrupt the FMP’s objective of allowing

incidental catch to be retained

throughout the year. NMFS finds for

good cause that the implementation of

this action cannot be delayed for 30

days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C.

553(d), a delay in the effective date is

hereby waived.

This action is required by § 679.20

and is exempt from review under E.O.

12866.

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

Dated: July 24, 1997.

Bruce Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–20007 Filed 7–25–97; 9:24 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F