Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6575

amend the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to

revise a clause used in construction

contracts. The revised clause would

explicitly allow the Government to

furnish drawings and specifications to

construction contractors in electronic

form and would require construction

contractors to reproduce and print

contract drawings and specifications as

needed.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

should be submitted in writing to the

address shown below on or before April

10, 2000, to be considered in the

formation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments on the

proposed rule to: Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Amy

Williams, PDUSD (AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD

3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20301–3062. Telefax

(703) 602–0350.

E-mail comments submitted via the

Internet should be addressed to:

dfars@acq.osd.mil

Please cite DFARS Case 99–D025 in

all correspondence related to this

proposed rule. E-mail correspondence

should cite DFARS Case 99–D025 in the

subject line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Amy Williams, (703) 602–0288.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

DoD uses the clause at DFARS

252.236–7001, Contract Drawings,

Maps, and Specifications, in fixed-price

construction contracts. The clause

presently states that the Government

will provide five sets (unless another

quantity is specified) of large-scale

drawings and specifications to the

contractor without charge; or, at the

Government’s option, may furnish the

contractor with one set of reproducibles,

or half-size drawings. This rule

proposes to revise the clause to specify

that the Government will provide one

set of large-scale drawings and

specifications to the contractor in

electronic or paper media, as chosen by

the contracting officer, and that the

contractor will reproduce and print

contract drawings and specifications as

needed.

This rule was not subject to Office of

Management and Budget review under

Executive Order 12866, dated

September 30, 1993.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The proposed rule is not expected to

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,

because the reproduction and printing

of contract drawings and specifications

normally does not constitute a

significant cost, and the contractor can

include this cost in the contract price.

Therefore, DoD has not performed an

initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

DoD invites comments from small

businesses and other interested parties.

DoD also will consider comments from

small entities concerning the affected

DFARS subpart in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be

submitted separately and should cite

DFARS Case 99–D025.

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 Part 252

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48

CFR Part 252 as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Part 252 continues to read as follows:

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

Chapter 1.

PART 252—SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT

CLAUSES

2. Section 252.236–7001 is revised to

read as follows:

252.236–7001 Contract Drawings, Maps,

and Specifications.

As prescribed in 236.570(a), use the

following clause:

Contract Drawings, Maps, and Specifications

(XXX 2000)

(a) The Government—

(1) Will provide to the Contractor, without

charge, one set of large-scale contract

drawings and specifications, except

publications incorporated into the technical

provisions by reference; and

(2) Will provide the drawings and

specifications in electronic or paper media,

as chosen by the Contracting Officer.

(b) The Contractor shall—

(1) Check all drawings furnished

immediately upon receipt;

(2) Compare all drawings and verify the

figures before laying out the work;

(3) Promptly notify the Contracting Officer

of any discrepancies;

(4) Be responsible for any errors that might

have been avoided by complying with this

paragraph (b); and

(5) Reproduce and print contract drawings

and specifications as needed.

(c) In general—

(1) Large-scale drawings shall govern

small-scale drawings; and

(2) The Contractor shall follow figures

marked on drawings in preference to scale

measurements.

(d) Omissions from the drawings or

specifications or the misdescription of details

of work that are manifestly necessary to carry

out the intent of the drawings and

specifications, or that are customarily

performed, shall not relieve the Contractor

from performing such omitted or

misdescribed details of the work. The

Contractor shall perform such details as if

fully and correctly set forth and described in

the drawings and specifications.

(e) The work shall conform to the

specifications and the contract drawings

identified on the following index of

drawings:

Title

File

Drawing No.

(End of clause)

[FR Doc. 00–2942 Filed 2–09–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 020200A]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Atlantic Herring Fishery;

Scoping Process

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS) and notice of scoping

process; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council)

announces its intent to prepare an

amendment to the Fishery Management

Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Herring (Clupea

harengus) and to prepare an SEIS, if

necessary, to analyze the impacts of any

proposed management measures. The

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission (Commission), under the

authority of the Atlantic Coastal

Fisheries Cooperative Management Act,

may also prepare an amendment to its

Interstate Fishery Management Plan for

Atlantic Sea Herring. The Council and

the Commission also formally announce

a public process to determine the scope

of alternatives to be addressed in the

SEIS. The purpose of this notification is

to alert the interested public of the

commencement of the scoping process

6576 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules

and to provide for public participation

in compliance with environmental

documentation requirements.

DATES: The Council and the

Commission will discuss and take

scoping comments at public meetings in

February 2000. For specific dates and

times, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

Written scoping comments must be

received on or before 5:00 pm., local

time, March 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The Council and the

Commission will take scoping

comments at public meetings in Maine,

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New

Jersey. For specific locations, see

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Written

comments and requests for copies of the

scoping document and other

information should be directed to Paul

J. Howard, Executive Director, New

England Fishery Management Council,

50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA

01950, telephone (978) 465–0492, or to

Jack Dunnigan, Executive Director,

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission, 1444 Eye Street NW.,

Sixth Floor, Washington, DC 20005,

telephone (202) 289–6400. The scoping

document is accessible electronically

via the Internet at http://www.nefmc.org

(Council) and http://www.afmsc.org

(Commission). Comments may also be

sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 465–

3116. Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

J. Howard, Executive Director, New

England Fishery Management Council

(978) 465–0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The U.S. Atlantic herring fishery is

managed as one stock complex along the

east coast from Maine to Cape Hatteras,

North Carolina, although evidence

suggests that at least two separate

biological stocks exist. Generally, the

resource has been divided into an

inshore Gulf of Maine and an offshore

Georges Bank/Nantucket Shoals

component. Individual spawning

aggregations have been identified, such

as the Jeffreys Ledge component of the

Gulf of Maine stock, but quantitative

data on the relative size of the

aggregations are lacking. A peerreviewed assessment of the Atlantic

herring coastal stock complex was last

conducted in 1998. This assessment

indicated that the stock complex was at

a high biomass level but was

underexploited in 1997. An update of

the assessment based on 1998 landings

suggests that these conditions still exist

in the fishery.

The Council and the Commission

adopted management measures for the

herring fishery in state and Federal

waters in 1999 and NMFS approved

most of the management measures

contained in the Federal FMP on

October 27, 1999. While the

Commission’s measures have been

adopted by the states, the proposed rule

to implement the Federal Atlantic

Herring FMP will be published in the

Federal Register for public comment in

the near future. A final rule to

implement the Federal FMP will be

published shortly after the close of the

comment period on the proposed rule.

The two management plans contain

similar management measures. The

plans establish total allowable catches

(TACs) levels in each of four

management areas. In state waters there

are spawning area restrictions (under

the Commission plan). Both plans

include limits on the size of vessels that

can take, catch, or harvest herring. Each

plan includes administrative elements

such as requirements for vessel, dealer,

and processor permits and reporting

requirements. A control date of

September 16, 1999, was established for

the Atlantic herring fishery in Federal

waters (64 FR 50266, September 16,

1999). The potential impacts of the

control date are discussed in the control

date announcement.

While the overall TAC level for

herring is more than twice the recent

landing levels, the proposed TAC for the

inshore Gulf of Maine component is

about 60 percent of the landings from

this area in 1996 and 1997. Some

fishermen believe that harvesting

capacity in this area should be restricted

to avoid problems that result from

excess fishing capacity. One of these

problems could be an inefficient ‘‘race

to fish’’ as increasing numbers of vessels

try to catch herring before the TAC is

reached. Additionally, the available

TAC in this area will likely be taken

before the 2000 fishing year is over. This

could disrupt the supply of herring for

various markets. As more vessels enter

the fishery, more fishermen would

likely fish for shorter periods of time in

this area. In other management areas,

recent catches have not approached the

proposed TACs. One objective of the

management plan is to distribute fishing

effort to all management areas. Catches

in Management Area 2 (Cape Cod and

south) have been relatively stable over

recent years. Catches in Management

Area 3 (Georges Bank) increased rapidly

to 40 percent of the proposed TAC from

1997 to 1998. These areas could absorb

more fishing effort.

Management of many fisheries in the

Northeast is complicated by excess

fishing capacity, which makes it

difficult to reduce fishing mortality to

levels necessary for stock rebuilding.

The development of a controlled access

system for the Atlantic herring fishery

that would allow new harvesting

capacity to target the offshore areas but

would prevent (and for one area slow)

the development of excess capacity

might solve the problems experienced

in these fisheries.

Options Under Consideration

The Council and the Commission are

considering a wide range of options for

the fishery, from—

(1) Continuing open access in each of

the four areas in which the fishery takes

place and continuing with the areaspecific TACs as the primary control on

fishing mortality (the No Action

Alternative); to

(2) Introducing one of a variety of

controlled access systems in one or

more of these areas, coupled with

related controls on fishing mortality.

The capacity controls under

consideration may work in the

following ways: The number of vessels

permitted to fish in one or more or all

of the Atlantic herring fishery zones

could be limited. This may occur

gradually as the number of vessels

fishing in each area and their catches in

that area approach its TAC. Other

options that will be examined include

closing one or more or all areas to new

participants before fishing harvest

capacity develops that exceeds the TAC

for a given area.

The elements that make up a

controlled access system will also be

open for comment. One or more kinds

of permits may be issued to one or more

of the management areas. Qualification

criteria will be established to determine

who gets a permit to fish in one or more

areas. The criteria can take many

different forms. For example, it could be

based on catches over a period of time,

on possession of another permit, or on

future performance.

A controlled access system may also

contain other means of managing fishing

mortality, for example, implementing

such limits on fishing effort as the

number of days vessels can fish, catch

limits, or gear restrictions, each with or

without the TACs now in place.

Another alternative is to establish an

individual quota system. Under this

system, a specific share of the TAC is

assigned to a vessel, person, or

community; in some systems, these

shares can be purchased or traded.

Because of possible different objectives

for each management area, some

elements of a controlled access system

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6577

for one area might be different from

those in another area.

Comments Requested

The Council and the Commission are

particularly interested in answers to the

following questions:

(1) Should there be a limited entry or

controlled access system in the Atlantic

herring fishery?

(2) If there is a limited entry or

controlled access system, should it be

adopted for the entire fishery or only for

certain management areas?

(3) When should the limited entry or

controlled access system become

effective? Should it become effective on

different dates in different areas?

(4) In a limited entry or controlled

access system, what type of

qualification criteria should be used to

determine who receives a limited entry

permit? For example, should permits be

issued based on past landings or on a

vessel holding another permit?

(5) If past landings are used to

determine who qualifies for a permit,

what should the level of landings be to

qualify? What is the appropriate time

period to be examined?

(6) What types of permit categories

should be considered? For example,

should there be directed fishery permits

and incidental catch permits, or

different permits for different gear

types?

(7) Should permits be freely

transferable, or should they be subject to

limits?

(8) Should there be upgrading

restrictions on permits?

(9) What other management measures,

if any, should be included in the limited

entry or controlled access system? For

example, should days-at-sea limits, trip

limits, or gear restrictions be used to

further control effort?

(10) Should an individual quota

system be part of the controlled access

program? (Under current law, an

individual quota system may not be

submitted to the Secretary for approval

and implementation before October 1,

2000.) If an individual quota system is

considered,—

(a) How should individual fishing

quotas be allocated?

(b) Should they be allocated to

vessels, individuals, or communities?

(c) Should there be limits on the

transferability of individual fishing

quotas?

(d) Should there be limits on how

much quota can be obtained by one

permit holder?

(e) How should present and historical

participation in the fishery be

considered?

(f) If an individual fishing quota

program is developed, how should

effective enforcement, management, and

observer coverage be provided, and how

should fees to recover actual

enforcement and management costs be

structured?

(g) If an individual fishing quota is

developed, how should a portion of the

annual harvest be allocated to entry

level fishermen, small vessel owners,

and crew members who do not qualify

for individual quotas?

(11) What communities do you think

would be most affected by a limited

entry program for Atlantic herring? How

would they be affected?

(12) What social and/or cultural

factors within these communities

should the Council consider when

developing a limited access program for

Atlantic herring?

(13) What do you think are the

potential social impacts (negative and/

or positive) of a limited access program

for Atlantic herring?

Scoping Process

All persons affected by or otherwise

interested in herring fisheries

management are invited to participate in

determining the scope and significance

of issues to be analyzed by submitting

written comments (see ADDRESSES) or by

attending one of the scoping hearings.

Scope consists of the range of actions,

alternatives, and impacts to be

considered. Alternatives include the

following: Not amending the

management plan (taking no action),

developing an amendment that contains

such management measures as the ones

previously mentioned in this notice, or

other reasonable courses of action.

Impacts may be direct, individual, or

cumulative. The scoping process will

also identify and eliminate from

detailed study issues that are not

significant. If, after the scoping process

is completed, the Council proceeds with

the development of an amendment to

the FMP, the Council will prepare an

SEIS or Environmental Assessment, as

appropriate, depending on the nature of

the amendment to be developed. The

Council and the Commission will hold

public hearings to receive comments on

the draft amendment and on the

analysis of its impacts on the human

environment.

Public Hearing Schedule

The Council and the Commission will

discuss and take scoping comments at

public meetings as follows:

Tuesday, February 22, 2000, 7 p.m.,

Cape May County Extension Office, 355

Courthouse–South Dennis road, Cape

May Courthouse, New Jersey. Telephone

(609) 465–5115.

Wednesday, February 23, 2000, 1

p.m., Trade Winds Hotel, 2 Park Drive,

Rockland, ME 04841. Telephone (207)

596–6661.

Thursday, February 24, 2000, 3 p.m.,

Radisson Airport Hotel, 2081 Post Road,

Warwick, RI 02886. Telephone (401)

739–3000.

Tuesday, February 29, 2000, 3 p.m.

King’s Grant Inn, Trask Road, Route

128, Exit 21N, Danvers, MA 01923.

Telephone (978) 774–6800.

Special Accommodations

The meetings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to Paul J. Howard

(see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to

this meeting date.

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

Dated: February 4, 2000.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–3005 Filed 2–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 000124018–0018–01; I.D.

122999A]

RIN 0648–AN38

Fisheries off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking to Establish a

Control Date

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council) is

considering management measures to

reduce harvest capacity in the open

access portion of the Pacific Coast

groundfish fishery in Federal waters off

Washington, Oregon, and California.

NMFS has previously made a similar

announcement relating to the limited

entry and recreational portions of the

fishery. This document announces a

control date for the open access portion

of November 5, 1999, and is intended to

promote awareness of potential

eligibility criteria for future access to the