Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 9375

§ 73.202 [Amended]

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

Allotments under California, is

amended by adding Channel 266A at

Weaverville.

Federal Communications Commission

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–5184 Filed 2–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94–78; RM–8472 and RM–

8525]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Cloverdale, Montgomery, and Warrior,

AL

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document denies a

petition for reconsideration filed by

William P. Rogers that appeals the

Report and Order, 60 FR 65021

(December 18, 1995), in this proceeding

insofar as it did not accept Rogers’

counterproposal to allot Channel 254A

to Florence, Alabama. The Report and

Order was affirmed because Rogers’

counterproposal did not provide 100

percent city-grade coverage of Florence,

as required by Section 73.315(a) of the

Commission’s Rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 1997.

ADDRESS: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.

Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM

Docket No. 94–78, adopted February 14,

1997, and released February 21, 1997.

The full text of this Commission

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC’s Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC. The complete text of this decision

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractors,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 2100 M Street NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857–3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Douglas W. Webbink,

Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–5191 Filed 2–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 239

[DFARS Case 96–D011]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Automatic

Data Processing Equipment Leasing

Costs

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Interim rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense

Procurement has issued an interim rule

amending the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) to remove references to an

obsolete Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) cost principle pertaining to

automatic data processing equipment

(ADPE) leasing costs, and to remove

corresponding contractor

documentation and Government

oversight requirements.

DATES: Effective date: March 3, 1997.

Comment date: Comments on the

interim rule should be submitted in

writing to the address shown below on

or before May 2, 1997, to be considered

in the formulation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to: Defense

Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn:

Ms. Sandra G. Haberlin, PDUSD (A&T)

DP (DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062.

Telefax number (703) 602–0350. Please

cite DFARS Case 96–D011 in all

correspondence related to this issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Sandra G. Haberlin, (703) 602–0131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

This interim DFARS rule supplements

the interim FAR rule published as Item

I of Federal Acquisition Circular 90–44

on December 31, 1996 (61 FR 79287).

The FAR rule deleted the cost principle

at FAR 31.205–2, Automatic Data

Processing Equipment Leasing Costs.

The cost principle was incorporated

into the FAR when ADPE was an

emerging technology, had limited

applications, and was a substantial cost

element on Government contracts. In

the current technological environment,

however, where ADPE hardware costs

are no longer such a significant expense

and computer systems have become

ubiquitous in the workplace, the

detailed scrutiny previously required

under FAR 31.205–2 is no longer

considered necessary.

This interim DFARS rule removes

references to FAR 31.205–2, and

removes corresponding contractor

documentation and Government

oversight requirements in Subpart

239.73, Acquisition of Automatic Data

Processing Equipment by DoD

contractors.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This interim 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 most contracts awarded to

small entities use simplified acquisition

procedures or are awarded on a

competitive, fixed-price basis, and do

not require application of the FAR or

DFARS cost principles. Therefore, an

initial regulatory flexibility analysis has

not been performed. Comments are

invited from small businesses and other

interested parties. Comments from small

entities concerning the affected DFARS

subpart also will be considered in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such

comments should be submitted

separately and should cite DFARS Case

96–D011 in correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule reduces, by 106,006 hours,

the information collection requirements

previously approved by the Office of

Management and Budget under

Clearance Number 0704–0341.

D. Determination To Issue an Interim

Rule

A determination has been made under

the authority of the Secretary of Defense

that urgent and compelling reasons exist

to publish this interim rule prior to

affording the public an opportunity to

comment. This action is necessary

because the cost principle, Automatic

Data Processing Equipment Leasing

Costs, was deleted from the FAR on

December 31, 1996. It is necessary that

a DFARS rule be published

expeditiously to remove references to

the obsolete cost principle, and to

remove corresponding contractor

documentation and Government

oversight requirements. However,

comments received in response to the

publication of this interim rule will be

considered in formulating the final rule.
9376 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 239

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

Therefore, 48 CFR Part 239 is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Part 239 continues to read as follows:

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

Chapter 1.

PART 239—ACQUISITION OF

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

2. The title of Part 239 is revised to

read as set forth above.

3. Section 239.7300 is revised to read

as follows:

239.7300 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes approval

requirements for automatic data

processing equipment (ADPE)

purchased by contractors for use in

performing DoD contracts.

4. Section 239.7301 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

239.7301 Applicability.

(a) This subpart applies when the

contractor purchases ADPE and title

will pass to the Government.

* * * * *

5. Section 239.7302 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (b) and paragraph (b)(1) to

read as follows:

239.7302 Approvals and screening.

* * * * *

(b) If the contractor proposes

acquiring ADPE subject to 239.7301,

and the unit acquisition cost is $50,000

or more—

(1) The contracting officer shall

require the contractor to submit,

through the administrative contracting

officer, the documentation in 239.7303.

* * * * *

6. Section 239.7303 is revised to read

as follows:

239.7303 Contractor documentation.

Contracting officers may tailor the

documentation requirements in

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this

section.

(a) List of existing ADPE and an

analysis of its use. (1) List of each

component identified by manufacturer,

type, model number, location, date of

installation, and how acquired (lease,

purchase, Government-furnished).

Identify those acquired specifically to

perform a Government contract.

(2) Reliability and usage data on each

component for the past 12 months.

(3) Identification of users supported

by each component, including how

much time each user requires the

component and the related contract or

task involved.

(b) List of new ADPE needed and

reasons why it is needed. (1) Estimates

of the new equipment’s useful life.

(2) List of tasks the new equipment is

needed for and why, including

estimated monthly usage for each major

task or project.

(3) Anticipated software and

telecommunications requirements.

(c) Selection of computer equipment.

(1) If the acquisition is competitive—

(i) List sources solicited and proposals

received;

(ii) Show how the evaluation was

performed; and

(iii) Provide an explanation if the

selected offer is not the lowest evaluated

offer.

(2) If the acquisition is not

competitive, state why.

(d) Cost. State the ADPE cost.

239.7304, 239.7305, and Table 39–1

[Removed]

7. Sections 239.7304 and 239.7305

and Table 39–1 are removed.

[FR Doc. 97–5143 Filed 2–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 285

[I.D. 022197C]

Atlantic Tuna Fisheries; Fishery

Closure

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that

landings of Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABT)

since January 1, 1997 and continued

high catch rates warrant an interim

closure of the ABT Angling category.

Therefore, the Angling category fishery

for school, large school, and small

medium ABT is closed in all areas until

further notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The closure of the

Angling category is effective 11:30 p.m.

local time on March 2, 1997, until the

effective date of any reopening, which

will be published in the Federal

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Kelly, 301–713–2347, or Mark MurrayBrown, 508–281–9260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations implemented under the

authority of the Atlantic Tunas

Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.)

governing the harvest of ABT by persons

and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction

are found at 50 CFR part 285. Section

285.22 subdivides the U.S. quota

recommended by the International

Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas among the various

domestic fishing categories.

NMFS is required, under 285.20(b)(1),

to monitor the catch and landing

statistics and, on the basis of these

statistics, to project a date when the

catch of ABT will equal the quota and

publish a Federal Register

announcement to close the applicable

fishery.

On February 21, 1997, NMFS

amended the regulations governing the

Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABT) fisheries to

provide authority for NMFS to close

and/or reopen all or part of the Angling

category in order to provide for

equitable distribution of fishing

opportunities throughout the species

range. The regulatory amendments were

necessary to increase the geographic and

temporal scope of data collection from

the scientific monitoring quota

established for the United States.

Additionally, the authority for interim

closures facilitates a more equitable

geographic and temporal distribution of

fishing opportunities for all fishermen

in the Angling category, thus furthering

domestic management objectives for the

Atlantic tuna fisheries.

Angling Category Closure

NMFS has received information from

the State of North Carolina that

approximately 13 mt of school, large

school, and small medium ABT have

been measured during dockside

interviews conducted through February

16, 1997. It is estimated that dockside

intercepts account for 43 percent of

angler trips. Therefore, NMFS estimates

that 30 mt of school, large school, and

small medium ABT have been landed.

Regulations allow that, upon

determining that variations in seasonal

distribution, abundance, or migration

patterns of ABT, or that the catch rate

in one area may preclude anglers in an

another area from a reasonable

opportunity to harvest a portion of the

quota, NMFS may close all or part of the

Angling category, and may reopen it at

a later date if NMFS determines that

ABT have migrated into an identified

area. In determining the need for any

such temporary or area closure, NMFS

considers the following factors:

(A) The usefulness of information

obtained from catches of a particular