Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 18987

3. The American Radio Relay League, Inc.

(ARRL)

4. AMTECH Corporation (AMTECH)

5. CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet)

6. Connectivity for Learning Coalition

7. Hughes Transportation Management

Systems (Hughes)

8. Intelligent Transportation Society of

America (ITSA)

9. Metricom, Inc. and Southern California

Edison Company (Metricom/SCE)

10. MobileVision, L.P. (MobileVision)

11. The New Jersey Highway Authority, the

New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the New

York State Thruway Authority, the

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Bridges and Tunnels, the Port Authority

of New York and New Jersey, the South

Jersey Transportation Authority and the

Delaware River Port Authority (‘‘the

Interagency Group’’).

12. The Part 15 Coalition (Part 15 Coalition)

13. Pinpoint Communications (Pinpoint)

14. Rand McNally & Company (Rand

McNally)

15. Safetran Systems Corporation (Safetran)

16. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc.

(SBMS)

17. Texas Instruments, Inc. and MFS

Network Technologies, Inc. (TI/MFS)

18. Uniplex Corporation (Uniplex)

19. UTC

20. Wireless Transactions Corporation

(Wireless Transactions)

[FR Doc. 96–10498 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 225

[DFARS Case 96–D309]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Pricing for

Sales of Defense Articles

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Interim rule with request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense

Procurement is amending the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) to implement

statutory provisions which require that

foreign military sales wholly paid for

from funds made available on a

nonrepayable basis shall be priced on

the same costing basis as is applicable

to acquisitions of like items purchased

by DoD for its own use.

DATES: Effective date: April 30, 1996.

Comment date: Comments on the

interim rule should be submitted in

writing to the address shown below on

or before July 1, 1996, to be considered

in the formulation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to: Defense

Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn:

Ms. Amy Williams, PDUSD (A&T) DP

(DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062.

Telefax (703) 602–0350. Please cite

DFARS Case 96–D309 in all

correspondence related to this issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Amy Williams, (703) 602–0131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

This interim rule amends DFARS

Subpart 225.73 to implement Section

531A of the Fiscal Year 1996 Foreign

Operations, Export Financing, and

Related Programs Appropriations Act

(Pub. L. 104–107), which amends

Section 22 of the Arms Export Control

Act (22 U.S.C. 2762) to require that

foreign military sales of defense articles

and defense services wholly paid for

from funds made available on a

nonrepayable basis shall be priced on

the same costing basis as is applicable

to like items purchased by DoD for its

own use.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This 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 DFARS Subpart 225.73 already

requires pricing of foreign military sales

contracts using the same general

principles as are used in pricing other

defense contracts. The only significant

change in this rule relates to the

allowability of independent research

and development and bid and proposal

costs in accordance with the cost

principle at FAR 31.205–18. This

change is not expected to significantly

impact small entities, as most contracts

awarded to small entities are awarded

on a competitive, fixed-price basis and

do not require application of the FAR

cost principles. An initial regulatory

flexibility analysis has therefore not

been performed. Comments are invited

from small businesses and other

interested parties. Comments from small

entities concerning the affected DFARS

subpart will be considered in

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

comments must be submitted separately

and cite DFARS Case 96–D309 in

correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not impose any new

information collection requirements

which require the approval of the Office

of Management and Budget under 44

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

D. Determination to Issue an Interim

Rule

A determination has been made under

the authority of the Secretary of Defense

that compelling reasons exist to

promulgate this interim rule without

prior opportunity for public comment.

This action is necessary to implement

Section 531A of the Fiscal Year 1996

Foreign Operations, Export Financing,

and Related Programs Appropriations

Act (Pub. L. 104–107), which became

effective on April 12, 1996. Comments

received in response to the publication

of this interim rule will be considered

in formulating the final rule.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 225

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

Therefore, 48 CFR Part 225 is

amended as follows:

PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Part 225 continues to read as follows:

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

Chapter 1.

2. Section 225.7303 is amended by

revising the title to read as follows:

225.7303 Pricing acquisitions for foreign

military sales (FMS).

3. Section 225.7303–2 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:

225.7303–2 Cost of doing business with a

foreign government or an international

organization.

(a) In pricing FMS contracts where

non-U.S. Government prices as

described in 225.7303–1 do not exist,

except as provided in 225.7303–5,

recognize the reasonable and allocable

costs of doing business with a foreign

government or international

organization, even though such costs

might not be recognized in the same

amounts in pricing other defense

contracts. Examples of such costs

include, but are not limited to—

* * * * *

(c) The provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2372

do not apply to contracts for foreign

military sales. Therefore, the cost

limitations on independent research and

development and bid and proposal

(IR&D/B&P) costs in FAR 31.205–18 do

not apply to such contracts, except as

provided in 225.7303–5. The

allowability of IR&D/B&P costs on

contracts for foreign military sales not

wholly paid for from funds made

available on a nonrepayable basis shall
18988 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

be limited to the contract’s allocable

share of the contractor’s total IR&D/B&P

expenditures. In pricing contracts for

such foreign military sales—

* * * * *

4. Section 225.7303–5 is added to

read as follows:

225.7303–5 Aquisitions wholly paid for

from nonrepayable funds.

(a) In accordance with 22 U.S.C.

2762(d), foreign military sales wholly

paid for from funds made available on

a nonrepayable basis shall be priced on

the same costing basis with regard to

profit, overhead, IR&D/B&P, and other

costing elements, as is applicable to

acquisitions of like items purchased by

DoD for its own use.

(b) Direct costs associated with

meeting a foreign customer’s additional

or unique requirements will be

allowable under such contracts. Indirect

burden rates applicable to such direct

costs shall be permitted at the same

rates applicable to acquisitions of like

items purchased by DoD for its own use.

(c) A U.S. defense contractor may not

recover costs incurred to implement its

offset agreement with a foreign

government or international

organization if the organization if the

foreign military sale Letter of Offer and

Acceptance is financed with funds

made available on a nonrepayable basis.

[FR Doc. 96–10542 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 611 and 663

[Docket No. 951227306–6117–02; I.D.

121295C]

Foreign Fishing; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Annual

Specifications; and Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final 1996 groundfish fishery

specifications for Pacific whiting and

correction.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 1996

fishery specifications for Pacific whiting

in the U.S. exclusive economic zone

(EEZ) and state waters off the coasts of

Washington, Oregon, and California as

authorized by the Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

(FMP). The specifications include the

level of the acceptable biological catch

(ABC) and harvest guideline, including

the distribution between domestic and

foreign fishing operations. The intended

effect of this action is to establish

allowable harvest levels of Pacific

whiting based on the best available

scientific information. Corrections are

also made to Table 1 in the annual

specifications and management

measures for the Pacific coast

groundfish fishery.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1996, until the

effective date of the 1997 annual

specifications and management

measures, which will be published in

the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. Robinson (Northwest Region,

NMFS) 206–526–6140; or Rodney R.

McInnis (Southwest Region, NMFS)

310–980–4040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP

requires that fishery specifications for

groundfish be evaluated each calendar

year, that harvest guidelines or quotas

be specified for species or species

groups in need of additional protection,

and that management measures

designed to achieve the harvest

guidelines or quotas be published in the

Federal Register and made effective by

January 1, the beginning of the fishing

year. This was done for the 1996

groundfish fishery (61 FR 279, January

4, 1996), with one exception, Pacific

whiting (whiting). Final specifications

for whiting were not announced because

the Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Council), which makes management

recommendations to NMFS, decided to

delay its consideration until 1995

hydroacoustic survey information could

be included in the assessment on

whiting and the new results reviewed.

Consequently, preliminary

specifications for whiting were

announced concurrent with the final

specifications for other groundfish

species. As in the past, the

specifications include fish caught in

state ocean waters (0–3 nautical miles

(nm) offshore) as well as fish caught in

the EEZ (3–200 nm offshore).

In 1994, the ABC for whiting was

substantially higher than in previous

years, primarily because it was based on

data from the 1992 hydroacoustic

survey that utilized new, more sensitive

equipment, and extended farther

offshore and farther north to encompass

the species’ range. To provide for

cautious exploitation until the 1992

survey results could be confirmed, a

conservative harvest rate policy was

adopted in 1994 and 1995 to minimize

the risk to the resource if the ABC is

later found to be too high. Because

initial results of the recent 1995 survey

were favorable, the Council initially

supported resumption of the moderate

exploitation rate in 1996. When applied

to the previous year’s stock assessment,

this resulted in a preliminary ABC

recommendation of 123,000 metric tons

(mt) for the U.S. and Canada combined.

The Council also recommended that the

preliminary U.S. harvest guideline

continue at 80 percent (98,400 mt) of the

ABC. When the preliminary

specifications were announced, NMFS

indicated that the final specifications

could be higher or lower, depending on

the information resulting from the new

survey and stock assessment on whiting.

At its March 1996 meeting in

Portland, OR, the Council reviewed the

new stock assessment, which indicated

that the biomass of 3-year-old whiting

was 60 percent greater than expected,

and that a moderate abundance of 2-

year-old fish will be recruited to the

fishery in 1996. However, the Council

recommended delaying the return to the

moderate exploitation rate until

resolution of new questions concerning

the correct hydroacoustic target strength

used in estimating biomass. The target

strength calibrates the hydroacoustic

survey data into absolute biomass of

whiting. Even so, by applying the

conservative exploitation rate to the

new stock assessment, the Council’s

final ABC recommendation (U.S. and

Canadian combined) of 265,000 mt is

42,000 mt higher than the 1995 ABC of

223,000 mt and more than double the

preliminary ABC of 123,000 mt. (Under

the new stock assessment, a moderate

exploitation rate would have led to a

1996 ABC of 369,000 mt.)

The Council also confirmed its

preliminary recommendation to set the

U.S. harvest guideline at 80 percent of

the U.S.-Canadian ABC. Therefore, the

final U.S. harvest guideline is 212,000

mt for 1996. If Canada adopts the same

ABC and calculates its share as 30

percent of the total catch, as in the

recent past, the U.S.-Canadian ABC will

be exceeded by about 14 percent. These

overages have not caused a biological

problem, particularly given the large

increase in the ABC in 1994 and use of

the conservative exploitation rate in

1994–96. The total harvest will not

reach the overfishing level. Bilateral

discussions with Canada are expected to

continue.

The whiting harvest guideline in 1996

is designated entirely for domestic

harvesting and processing, and there is

no surplus for joint venture or foreign

fishing operations.

Public comments on the preliminary

whiting specifications were requested

through February 5, 1996, but none

were received. Whiting caught in 1996