Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16107

*(L.27) ......... 52.215–41 Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, Alternate III.

*(L.28) ......... 52.215–41 Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, Alternate IV.

(L.29) ........... 252.227–7017 Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions.

(L.30) ........... 252.227–7028 Technical Data or Computer Software Previously Delivered to the Government.

*(L.31) ......... 52.215–30 Facilities Capital Cost of Money (Except educational institutions).

(L.32) ........... 52.204–6 Contractor Identification Number—Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number.

*(L.33) ......... 52.211–14 Notice of Priority Rating for National Defense Use.

(L.34 through L.99) Reserved.

*(L.100) (Insert special instructions,

conditions, or notices to offerors, if

applicable).

(L.101) Government-Furnished Property.

No material, labor, or facilities will be

furnished by the Government unless

provided for in the solicitation.

(L.102) Proposal Preparation and

Submission Instructions.

(i) Page limitation, format.

(A) A proposal shall be prepared in

separate volumes with the page limit and

number of copies specified as follows. The

table of contents and tabs are exempt from

the page limits. No cross-referencing between

volumes for essential information is

permitted except where specifically set forth

herein. The following volumes of material

will be submitted:

Title Copies

Maximum

page limits

Cost ........... As specified in solicitation summary.* 50

Technical ... As specified in solicitation summary.100

* The 50-page cost proposal is a goal not a

limit. The Contractor may use additional pages

if necessary to comply with public law.

(B) Any technical proposal pages

submitted that exceed the page limitations

set forth in paragraph (i)(A) of this subsection

L.102 will not be read or evaluated. Proposal

pages failing to meet the format in paragraph

(i)(D) of this subsection L.102 will not be

read or evaluated.

(C) No program cost data or cross-reference

to the cost proposal will be included in any

other volume.

(D) Format of the proposal volumes shall

be as follows:

(1) Proposals will be prepared on 81⁄2 x 11

inch paper except for foldouts used for

charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not

exceed 11 x 17 inches. Foldouts will not be

used for text. Pages will have a one inch

margin.

(2) A page is defined as one face of a sheet

of paper containing information. Two pages

may be printed on one sheet.

(3) Type size will be no smaller than 10

point character height (vertical size) and no

more than an average of 12 characters per

inch. Use of type-setting techniques to reduce

type size below 10 points or to increase

characters beyond 12 per inch is not

permitted. Such techniques are construed as

a deliberate attempt to circumvent the intent

of page limitations set forth in paragraph

(i)(A) of this subsection L.102.

(4) Proposal must lie flat when open;

elaborate binding is not desirable.

(5) No models, mockups, or video tapes

will be accepted.

(6) Technical proposals will be prepared in

the same sequence as the statement of work.

(ii) Content.

All proposals must be complete and

respond directly to the requirements of the

solicitation. The factors and subfactors listed

in Section M of the solicitation shall be

addressed. Cost and supporting data shall be

included only in the cost volume. All other

information shall be included in the

technical volume.

(L.103) The Government may make

multiple awards resulting from this

solicitation.

Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award

Use of the standard evaluation factors is

preferred. If the standard evaluation factors

are modified in any way, the modifications

must be clearly expressed so that the result

is unambiguous. Additions to and deletions

from the contents of this Section M must be

clearly annotated in the solicitation summary

(see 235.7006(d)(A.1)(vii)).

*(M.1) FAR 52.217–5 Evaluation of

Options (Applicable if the solicitation

indicates that options are anticipated in the

resulting contract. When this provision is

included, evaluation criteria for options shall

be included in Section M.)

*(M.2) Proposal Evaluation Procedures and

Basis for Award. Proposals will be evaluated

and award made as follows:

(i) Basis for award.

The award decision will be based on

evaluation of all factors and subfactors set

forth in this solicitation. The Government

may select the source whose proposal offers

the greatest value to the Government in terms

of technical, cost or price, and other factors

set forth in the solicitation. The source

selected may or may not have the lowest

proposed total costs.

(ii) Evaluation factors.

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance

with the following factors. The technical

factor is more important than the cost factor.

The technical subfactors are in descending

order of importance unless otherwise stated

in the solicitation. The cost subfactors are of

equal weight.

(A) Technical.

(1) Technical approach. The soundness of

the offeror’s technical approach, including

the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of

the technical requirement.

(2) Qualification. The experience and

qualifications of the proposed personnel

relevant to the proposed task. The quantity

and quality of the offeror’s corporate

experience relevant to the proposed task.

(3) Management. The degree to which the

offeror demonstrates the ability to effectively

and efficiently manage and administer the

program to a successful conclusion.

(4) Facilities. The degree to which the

proposed facilities enable accomplishment of

the proposed effort.

(B) Cost.

(1) Reasonableness. Proposed estimated

cost and fee (if any).

(2) Completeness. The adequacy of the

identification, estimation and support of all

relevant costs.

(3) Realism. The consistency of the cost

proposal with the technical effort proposed,

the organizational structure, method of

operations and cost accounting practices.

*(M.3) 52.215–34 Evaluation of Offers for

Multiple Awards.

[FR Doc. 97–8642 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 171

[Docket No. RSPA–97–2133 (HM–225)]

RIN 2137–AC97

Hazardous Materials: Cargo Tank

Motor Vehicles in Liquefied

Compressed Gas Service; Clarification

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Clarification and change of a

workshop date.

SUMMARY: This action clarifies the size

and location of a marking provision

required by an interim final rule

published in the Federal Register on

February 19, 1997. This clarification is

in response to inquiries received by

RSPA. Additionally, in response to a

request from the National Propane Gas

Association RSPA announces a change

of date for a public workshop originally

scheduled for April 8–9, 1997.

DATES: The workshop is rescheduled to

April 16–17, 1997, from 9:00 a.m. to

5:00 p.m. in Washington, DC. If all

presentations and reviews are

completed on April 16, the workshop

will be adjourned without reconvening

on April 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Karim, Office of Hazardous

Materials Standards (DHM–10),

Research and Special Programs

Administration, Room 8102, 400
16108 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590–0001, Telephone (202) 366–8553.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will

be held in Room 8236–40, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RSPA

received general requests for

clarification concerning the size and

placement of the marking required by

§ 171.5(b) of the Hazardous Materials

Regulations (49 CFR parts 171–180).

This temporary marking requirement

was adopted in an interim final rule

(IFR) published in the Federal Register

on February 19, 1997 [62 FR 7638]. The

marking dimensions specified in the IFR

are the minimum acceptable size

markings. It is permissible to make the

marking proportionally larger. Also, in

the IFR, RSPA did not indicate the exact

location for placing this marking on the

cargo tank. On February 21, 1997, RSPA

responded to a request for clarification

from the National Tank Truck Carriers,

Inc. by stating that the marking should

be placed at or near a tank’s

specification plate.

In the IFR, RSPA announced that two

public workshops would be held in

Washington, DC. The first workshop

was held on March 4–5, 1997. It served

as a forum for exchange of information

and ideas concerning emergency

discharge control systems on cargo

tanks. The second workshop, now

scheduled for April 16–17, 1997, will

focus on review of prototype designs for

proposed product discharge control

systems, and a review of research and

development actions initiated by

industry to meet the requirements

specified in the HMR.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31,

1997.

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–8612 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 229

[Docket No. 960730211–7066–03; I.D. No.

031797D]

North Atlantic Right Whale Protection;

Emergency Regulations

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Emergency interim rule.

SUMMARY: This emergency interim rule

implements restrictions on use of

lobster pot gear in the Cape Cod Bay

right whale critical habitat from April 1,

1997, through May 15, 1997. It also

prohibits lobster pot fishing in the Great

South Channel right whale critical

habitat area from April 1, 1997, through

June 30, 1997, until gear modifications

or alternative fishing practices that

minimize the risk of entanglement or

reduce the likelihood that entanglement

will result in serious injury or mortality

are developed and approved.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

from April 1, 1997, through June 30,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the

Environmental Assessment analyzing

this action may be obtained from the

Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office

of Protected Resources (FPR), NMFS,

1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring,

MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Payne, NMFS/Marine Mammal

Division/Office of Protected Resources,

301–713–2322; or Kimberly

Thounhurst, NMFS/Northeast Regional

Office/Protected Species Program, 508–

281–9138.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Emergency Action

With a minimum population estimate

of 295 animals, the northern right whale

is the most severely depleted large

whale species in the Atlantic Ocean.

Approximately 37 entanglements of

right whales in fishing gear, including

fixed and drift gillnets, lobster pot gear,

fish traps, weirs, and unidentified gear

have been reported. Nine of the above

entanglements, eight of which resulted

in serious injury or mortality, were

attributed to gear identified as lobster

gear. The working definition of serious

injury used by the Northeast Region is

provided in the 1997 List of Fisheries

(62 FR 33, January 2, 1997). Pursuant to

Section 118(g)(1)(B) of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), if the

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) finds

that the incidental mortality and serious

injury of a marine mammal stock is

having, or is likely to have, an

immediate and significant adverse

impact on that stock or species, and in

the case where a take reduction plan

(TRP) is being developed, the Secretary

shall prescribe emergency regulations to

reduce such incidental mortality and

serious injury in that fishery and

approve and implement, on an

expedited basis, such plan, which shall

provide methods to address such

adverse impact if still necessary.

In the case of the northern right

whale, NMFS has determined, through

consultation under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA), that the continued

existence of the species may be

jeopardized by the use of lobster pot

gear during the annual high use periods

in both the Federal portion of the Cape

Cod Bay critical habitat (January 1,

1997, through May 15) and in the Great

South Channel critical habitat area

(April 1 through June 30). The

consultation concluded that the risk of

jeopardy could be avoided by closing

the Great South Channel critical habitat

area during the period of peak whale

abundance until gear modifications or

alternative fishing practices have been

developed which minimize the threat of

entanglement or the possibility of

serious injury or mortality due to

entanglement. The biological opinion

also recommended that NMFS work

with the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts to restrict or modify the

lobster fishery in the Cape Cod Bay

critical habitat. The conclusion of the

biological opinion was based on the

following factors: (1) In 20 of the past 27

years, the right whale population has

incurred human-induced serious injury

or mortality at a rate that continues to

limit the species’ ability to recover to its

optimum sustainable population level,

(2) the population remains at a critically

low level and experienced an unusually

high number of known mortalities in

1996, and (3) right whales have incurred

serious injury and mortality incidental

to the lobster pot fishery.

Areas designated under the ESA as

critical habitat areas for the northern

right whale were chosen to encompass

areas of concentration for the species

(See 50 CFR 226.13). Although

individual right whales may transit

much of the eastern coast of North

America, large numbers of whales are

likely to remain in the critical habitat

areas throughout the peak months. Peak

months include January or February

through May in Cape Cod Bay and April

through June in the Great South

Channel. Identifying high risk times and

areas for right whales is somewhat

problematic because, although the

location for most recorded entanglement

events is unknown, entanglements are

known to have occurred either at the

very end of the peak spring period or at

other times of the year. An analysis of

fishing effort data indicates that the

critical habitat areas do not have

significant fishing effort in the peak

whale abundance months. Despite low

fishing effort levels, NMFS assigns high

risk to critical habitat areas during peak