Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 14487 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this regulatory 

action under Executive Order 13563, 

which supplements and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, 

Executive Order 13563 requires that an 

agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this proposed priority 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits would justify its costs. 

In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that would maximize 

net benefits. Based on the analysis that 

follows, the Department believes that 

this regulatory action is consistent with 

the principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program have been well 

established over the years. Projects 

similar to the RRTC have been 

completed successfully, and the 

proposed priority will generate new 

knowledge through research. The new 

RRTC will generate, disseminate, and 

promote the use of new information that 

would improve outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities in the areas 

of community living and participation, 

employment, and health and function. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is not subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD or TTY, call the 

FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: March 1, 2013. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05227 Filed 3–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0360; FRL–9380–8] 

Tetrachlorvinphos; Proposed 

Extension of Time-Limited Interim 

Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation proposes the 

extension of the time-limited interim 

tolerances for the combined residues of 

the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos, 

including its metabolites, in or on 

multiple commodities which are 

identified in Unit III of this document, 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 11, 2013. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14488 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0360, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carmen Rodia, Registration Division 

(7504P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 306–0327; email address: 

rodia.carmen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A detailed summary of the 

background related to EPA’s extension 

of the time-limited interim tolerances 

for the combined residues of the 

insecticide tetrachlorvinphos, including 

its metabolites, in or on multiple 

commodities can be found in the 

Federal Register notices of June 8, 2011 

(76 FR 33184) (FRL–8874–7) and 

September 16, 2011 (76 FR 57657) 

(FRL–8887–5). The referenced 

documents are available in the docket 

established by this action, which is 

described under ADDRESSES. Locate and 

click on the hyperlink for docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0360. 

Double-click on the documents to view 

the referenced background summary 

information. 

III. Proposal 

EPA, on its own initiative, under 

section 408(e) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(e), is proposing to extend the 

expiration dates of the time-limited 

interim tolerances for the combined 

residues of the insecticide 

tetrachlorvinphos, including its 

metabolites, in or on cattle, fat (of which 

no more than 0.1 part per million (ppm) 

is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.2 ppm; 

cattle, kidney (of which no more than 

0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 

1.0 ppm; cattle, liver (of which no more 

than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per 

se) at 0.5 ppm; cattle, meat (of which no 

more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se) at 2.0 ppm; cattle, meat 

byproducts, except kidney and liver at 

1.0 ppm; egg (of which no more than 

0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 

0.2 ppm; hog, fat (of which no more 

than 0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per 

se) at 0.2 ppm; hog, kidney (of which no 

more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 1.0 ppm; 

hog, liver (of which no more than 0.05 

ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.5 

ppm; hog, meat (of which no more than 

2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 

2.0 ppm; hog, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver at 1.0 ppm; milk, fat 

(reflecting negligible residues in whole 

milk and of which no more than 0.05 

ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.05 

ppm; poultry, fat (of which no more 

than 7.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per 

se) at 7.0 ppm; poultry, liver (of which 

no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 2.0 ppm; 

poultry, meat (of which no more than 

3.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 

3.0 ppm; and poultry, meat byproducts, 

except liver at 2.0 ppm. The existing 

tolerances, which are found in 40 CFR 

180.252 will expire on March 18, 2013. 

EPA is proposing a new expiration date 

of August 18, 2013, for these tolerances. 

As discussed in the previous 

rulemakings, these time-limited interim 

tolerances for tetrachlorvinphos, and its 

metabolites, have been determined to be 

safe based on previously submitted 

magnitude of residue data. See the 2011 

proposed and final rules (76 FR 33184, 

June 8, 2011 and 76 FR 57657, 

September 16, 2011); the 2008 proposed 

and final rules (73 FR 6867, February 6, 

2008 and 73 FR 53732, September 17, 

2008); and the 2002 notice (67 FR 

52985, Aug. 14, 2002). In order to 

support making these tolerances 

permanent, EPA required the 

submission of new magnitude of residue 

data. The registrant submitted livestock 

magnitude of residue data, and storage 

stability data to support previously 

submitted magnitude of residue data in 

poultry and cattle, and a waiver request 

for the swine magnitude of residue data. 

Based on that data, EPA has concluded 

that the data confirm previous findings 

made by the Agency with regard to the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 14489 

level of residues of tetrachlorvinphos in 

livestock commodities and 

consequently, the safety finding for 

these tolerances. The Agency is 

proposing an interim extension of the 

expiration dates of these time-limited 

interim tolerances in order to maintain 

the status quo while allowing the public 

a sufficient time to comment on the 

proposal to make these time-limited 

interim tolerances permanent. 

IV. Shortened Comment Period 

FFDCA section 408(e)(2) requires a 

comment period of not less than 60 days 

on EPA tolerance actions proposed on 

the Agency’s initiative unless EPA ‘‘for 

good cause finds that a shorter comment 

period would be in the public interest 

* * *.’’ EPA has determined that such 

good cause exists here. This rulemaking 

is intended to provide an interim 

extension of the existing time-limited 

tolerances for tetrachlorvinphos to allow 

the Agency sufficient time to comply 

with the procedural requirements of 

section 408(e)(2). As indicated in Unit 

III, EPA’s review of the submitted data 

confirms the Agency’s previous safety 

findings and supports allowing these 

tolerances to remain in effect, and EPA 

intends to initiate a section 408(e) 

rulemaking to amend these time-limited 

tolerances to be permanent. 

The existing time-limited interim 

tolerances are set to expire on March 18, 

2013, which does not allow sufficient 

time for the Agency to provide a 60-day 

public comment period on a proposal to 

make these tolerances permanent. EPA 

intends to give the public the full 60 

days to comment on this proposal, so it 

is proposing to extend the expiration 

date of the existing time-limited 

tolerances to maintain the status quo for 

the duration of the rulemaking to make 

the time-limited tolerances permanent. 

It is in the public interest to retain the 

existing tolerances for a sufficient 

period to enable the public to have an 

adequate opportunity to comment on 

the Agency’s proposal to make these 

tolerances permanent; thus, EPA 

concludes there is good cause to limit 

the comment period for this interim 

proposal to 5 days. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed rule proposes to amend 

a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted these types of 

actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this proposed 

rule has been exempted from review 

under Executive Order 12866 due to its 

lack of significance, this proposed rule 

is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed 

rule does not contain any information 

collections subject to OMB approval 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or 

impose any enforceable duty or contain 

any unfunded mandate as described 

under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.). Nor does it require any 

special considerations under Executive 

Order 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994); or OMB review or any Agency 

action under Executive Order 13045, 

entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant 

to the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that 

this proposed action will not have 

significant negative economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In fact, this rule will have no impact 

because it merely maintains the status 

quo by leaving in effect existing 

tolerances for 5 months beyond the 

existing expiration dates. In addition, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, 

entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). Executive Order 

13132 requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ This 

proposed rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States. This 

action does not alter the relationships or 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by Congress 

in the preemption provisions of FFDCA 

section 408(n)(4). For these same 

reasons, the Agency has determined that 

this proposed rule does not have any 

‘‘tribal implications’’ as described in 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Executive 

Order 13175 requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

proposed rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 26, 2013. 

G. Jeffrey Herndon, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.252, paragraph (a), revise 

the table to read as follows: 

§ 180.252 Tetrachlorvinphos; tolerances 

for residues. 

(a) * * * 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14490 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Cattle, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) ..................................................................... 0 .2 8/18/13 

Cattle, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) ............................................................. 1 .0 8/18/13 

Cattle, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) ................................................................. 0 .5 8/18/13 

Cattle, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) ................................................................. 2 .0 8/18/13 

Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver ......................................................................................................... 1 .0 8/18/13 

Egg (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) ............................................................................. 0 .2 8/18/13 

Hog, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) ........................................................................ 0 .2 8/18/13 

Hog, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) ................................................................ 1 .0 8/18/13 

Hog, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) .................................................................... 0 .5 8/18/13 

Hog, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) .................................................................... 2 .0 8/18/13 

Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver ............................................................................................................ 1 .0 8/18/13 

Milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk and of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per 

se) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0 .05 8/18/13 

Poultry, fat (of which no more than 7.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) .................................................................... 7 .0 8/18/13 

Poultry, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) ............................................................... 2 .0 8/18/13 

Poultry, meat (of which no more than 3.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) ................................................................ 3 .0 8/18/13 

Poultry, meat byproducts, except liver .......................................................................................................................... 2 .0 8/18/13 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–04934 Filed 3–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 99–25; Report No. 2973] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in a Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petitions for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document. Petitions 

for Reconsideration (Petitions) have 

been filed in the Commission’s 

rulemaking proceeding by Michael 

Couzens and Alan Korn Esq on behalf 

of Michael Couzens and Alan Korn, 

Brandy Doyle and Paul Bame, on behalf 

of Prometheus Radio Project, Don 

Schellhardt, Esq., on behalf of LET 

CITIES IN!!, Michelle Eyre, on behalf of 

REC Networks, and Donald E. Martin 

P.C., on behalf of LifeTalk Radio, Inc. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed by March 21, 2013. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

April 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Parul P. Desai, Media Bureau, 202–418– 

8217. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, Report No. 2973, released 

February 21, 2013. The full text of 

Report No. 2973 is available for viewing 

and copying in Room CY–B402, 445 

12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc. (BCPI) (1–800–378–3160). The 

Commission will not send a copy of this 

Notice pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), 

because this Notice does not have an 

impact on any rules of particular 

applicability. 

Subject: Creation of a Low Power 

Radio Service, Amendment of Service 

and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast 

Translator Station, Petition for 

Reconsideration of Fifth Order on 

Reconsideration and Sixth Report and 

Order, published at 77 FR 21002, April 

9, 2012, in MB Docket No. 99–25, and 

published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). 

See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Number of Petitions Filed: 5. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05192 Filed 3–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 300 and 679 

[Docket No. 120223143–3156–01] 

RIN 0648–BB94 

Amendment 94 to the Gulf of Alaska 

Fishery Management Plan and 

Regulatory Amendments for 

Community Quota Entities 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Amendment 94 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP), 

which would amend certain sablefish 

provisions of the Individual Fishing 

Quota Program for the Fixed-Gear 

Commercial Fisheries for Pacific Halibut 

and Sablefish in Waters in and off 

Alaska (IFQ Program). Amendment 94 

and its proposed implementing 

regulations would revise the vessel use 

caps applicable to sablefish quota share 

(QS) held by Gulf of Alaska (GOA) 

Community Quota Entities (CQEs). 

NMFS is proposing the same regulatory 

revisions to the vessel use caps 

applicable to halibut QS held by GOA 

CQEs. In this action, NMFS is also 

proposing to revise the IFQ Program 

regulations to add three eligible 

communities to the CQE Program; to 

allow CQEs in International Pacific 

Halibut Commission regulatory area 3A 

(Area 3A) to purchase vessel category D 

halibut QS; to revise CQE annual 

reporting requirements, including 

specifying requirements for the charter 

halibut program; to clarify the CQE 

floating processor landing reporting 

requirements; and to consolidate CQE 

Program eligibility by community in a 

single table in the regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than 5 p.m., Alaska local time, on 

April 5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by FDMS 

Docket Number NOAA–NMFS–2012– 

0040, by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS