Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 52 / Monday, March 18, 2013 / Proposed Rules 16629 

On December 23, 2008, Governor 

Schwarzenegger objected to certain 

terms of designation for MBNMS and 

GFNMS that would have allowed 

NOAA to regulate the ‘‘introduction of 

introduced species’’ into those 

sanctuaries. The Governor’s objection 

was conditional: it would not apply if 

NOAA were willing and able to modify 

its regulations to except (i.e., allow) all 

state-permitted introduced species 

aquaculture activities in the two 

sanctuaries and also allow research 

involving the introduction of introduced 

species in MBNMS. 

After receiving the Governor’s 

objection, NOAA worked with staff from 

the California Natural Resources Agency 

and the California Department of Fish 

and Game to find solutions to the 

Governor’s concerns that would also 

meet NOAA’s goals. For GFNMS, NOAA 

proposed to conduct a process to modify 

the regulations on introduced species to 

except (allow) state-permitted 

aquaculture in state waters of that 

sanctuary and also agreed to not enforce 

the introduced species provisions in the 

state waters of GFNMS until such new 

rulemaking could be conducted and 

public comment on the matter could be 

considered. 

For MBNMS, NOAA was willing and 

able to amend the regulations to include 

the same exception for state-permitted 

aquaculture in state waters. NOAA 

could not agree, however, to also create 

an exception for research involving the 

introduction of introduced species in 

the MBNMS, as the Governor requested. 

Despite discussions with the state, state 

officials never provided NOAA with a 

reason or scientific justification why 

such an exemption for research would 

be needed. Neither the Governor nor the 

state agencies with which NOAA 

worked provided any description of 

how this exception would be used, what 

types of research activities would 

qualify, or what the effect of it would be 

on sanctuary resources. Because no 

compromise was attained, the 

Governor’s objection applied to the term 

of designation for the regulation of 

introduced species in the state waters of 

MBNMS. As indicated in the notice of 

effective date (March 23, 2009; 74 FR 

12088), the regulation of the 

introduction of introduced species from 

within or into MBNMS does not apply 

in state waters of the sanctuary; it is 

valid and in effect only in the federal 

waters of the sanctuary, i.e., the area 

lying beyond the seaward boundary of 

the state. 

II. Basis for Withdrawing the Proposed 

Rule 

In response to Governor 

Schwarzenegger’s objection and based 

upon discussions with the state, on 

October 1, 2009, NOAA issued a 

proposed rule (74 FR 50740) to modify 

the introduced species regulations to 

allow all state-permitted aquaculture 

activities in the state waters of GFNMS, 

and to clarify that the prohibition 

against release of introduced species did 

not apply in state waters of MBNMS. 

NOAA took this action because, as 

previously noted, the Governor’s 

certification as unacceptable of the new 

terms of designation for GFNMS and 

MBNMS prevented the introduced 

species regulations from applying 

within state waters of the two 

sanctuaries. For GFNMS, the proposed 

rule was NOAA’s effort to meet the 

Governor’s concerns while still keeping 

most of the protections that would be 

realized by prohibiting the introduction 

or release of invasive or genetically 

altered species anywhere in the 

sanctuary. As also previously noted, 

NOAA was not able to reach an 

acceptable basis that would meet the 

Governor’s demand for an exception to 

the prohibition that allows statepermitted research involving these 

species within state waters of MBNMS. 

In NOAA’s view, the state was unable 

to provide necessary information to 

justify the exception. For MBNMS, the 

proposed rule restricted the application 

of the introduced species prohibition to 

the federal waters of the sanctuary. 

No new information was received by 

NOAA during the public comment 

period from members of the public or 

the state that would support modifying 

the introduced species prohibitions as 

originally promulgated. NOAA received 

and considered five public comments in 

response to the NPRM. Several distinct 

issues were raised in these comments: 

(1) Support for the original regulations 

as promulgated for both sanctuaries; (2) 

support for the authority of the state 

regarding management of resources 

within state waters; (3) concern 

regarding the lack of protection to 

sanctuary resources that the thenGovernor’s objection would cause; and 

(4) concern over communication 

between the federal and state 

governments leading to the impasse on 

this issue. 

Because there was never any valid 

reason or basis provided by the thenGovernor, or received during the public 

comment period, for conducting 

research involving the introduction or 

release of introduced species, and 

because neither the state nor the public 

review process has identified why a 

patchwork of regulations and 

exemptions across the sanctuaries 

offshore California is beneficial, NOAA 

does not believe the resources of the 

sanctuaries would be adequately 

protected by the proposed rulemaking 

and notes the possibility of confusion 

among members of the public regarding 

different prohibitions in geographically 

close sanctuaries. 

For these reasons, NOAA has 

concluded that the proposed rule is no 

longer warranted and is therefore 

withdrawing it. The legal effect of this 

action is that the Governor 

Schwarzenegger’s letter of December 23, 

2008, certifies as unacceptable the terms 

of designation for GFNMS and MBNMS 

regarding the regulation of introduced 

species in the two sanctuaries and 

modifies the terms of designation for 

each sanctuary by limiting the 

application of terms regarding 

introduced species to federal waters. As 

a result, the regulations implementing 

these terms do not apply in state waters 

in either GFNMS or MBNMS (15 CFR 

922.82(a)(10) and 922.132(a)(12), 

respectively). NOAA will be publishing 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to revise the terms 

of designation for these two sanctuaries 

regarding introduced species and 

regulations that would apply in both 

state and federal waters. 

III. Withdrawal 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NOAA has determined that the NPRM 

for NOAA Docket No. NOAA–NOS– 

2009–0105, as published in the Federal 

Register on October 1, 2009 (74 FR 

50740), is hereby withdrawn. 

Dated: March 11, 2013. 

Holly A. Bamford, 

Assistant Administrator, National Ocean 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06295 Filed 3–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Part 226 

Osage Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Meetings. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16630 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 52 / Monday, March 18, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Osage 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee will 

meet as indicated below. 

DATES: Meeting: The meeting will be 

held on Tuesday, April 2, 2013, from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Wah Zha Zhi Cultural 

Center, 1449 W. Main, Pawhuska, 

Oklahoma 74056. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Eddie Streater, Designated Federal 

Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Wewoka Agency, P.O. Box 1540, 

Seminole, OK 74818; telephone (405) 

257–6250; fax (405) 257–3875; or email 

osageregneg@bia.gov. Additional 

Committee information can be found at: 

http://www.bia.gov/osageregneg. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 14, 2011, the United States and 

the Osage Nation (formerly known as 

the Osage Tribe) signed a Settlement 

Agreement to resolve litigation 

regarding alleged mismanagement of the 

Osage Nation’s oil and gas mineral 

estate, among other claims. As part of 

the Settlement Agreement, the parties 

agreed that it would be mutually 

beneficial ‘‘to address means of 

improving the trust management of the 

Osage Mineral Estate, the Osage Tribal 

Trust Account, and Other Osage 

Accounts.’’ Settlement Agreement, 

Paragraph 1.i. The parties agreed that a 

review and revision of the existing 

regulations is warranted to better assist 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 

managing the Osage Mineral Estate. The 

parties agreed to engage in a negotiated 

rulemaking for this purpose. Settlement 

Agreement, Paragraph 9.b. After the 

Committee submits its report, BIA will 

develop a proposed rule to be published 

in the Federal Register. 

Meeting Agenda: The morning session 

will include: Final Committee thoughts 

on proposed final revised regulations 

and public comment on final proposed 

revised regulations. The afternoon 

session will include: Responses by the 

Committee on public comments and 

final vote by Committee on final 

proposed revised regulations. The final 

agenda will be posted on www.bia.gov/ 

osagenegreg prior to each meeting. 

Public Input: Committee meetings are 

open to the public. Interested members 

of the public may present, either orally 

or through written comments, 

information for the Committee to 

consider during the public meeting. 

Written comments should be submitted, 

prior to, during, or after the meeting, to 

Mr. Eddie Streater, Designated Federal 

Officer, preferably via email, at 

osagenegneg@bia.gov, or by U.S. mail 

to: Mr. Eddie Streater, Designated 

Federal Officer, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Wewoka Agency, P.O. Box 1540, 

Seminole, OK 74818. Due to time 

constraints during the meeting, the 

Committee is not able to read written 

public comments submitted into the 

record. 

Individuals or groups requesting to 

make oral comments at the public 

Committee meeting will be limited to 5 

minutes per speaker. Speakers who 

wish to expand their oral statements, or 

those who had wished to speak, but 

could not be accommodated during the 

public comment period, are encouraged 

to submit their comments in written 

form to the Committee after the meeting 

at the address provided above. There 

will be a sign-up sheet at the meeting for 

those wishing to speak during the 

public comment period. 

The meeting location is open to the 

public. Space is limited, however, so we 

strongly encourage all interested in 

attending to preregister by submitting 

your name and contact information via 

email to Mr. Eddie Streater at 

osageregneg@bia.gov. Persons with 

disabilities requiring special services, 

such as an interpreter for the hearing 

impaired, should contact Mr. Streater at 

(405) 257–6250 at least seven calendar 

days prior to the meeting. We will do 

our best to accommodate those who are 

unable to meet this deadline. 

Dated: March 8, 2013. 

Michael S. Black, 

Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06175 Filed 3–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 35 

[EPA–R09–0AR–2013–0052; FRL–9788–5] 

Clean Air Act Grant: South Coast Air 

Quality Management District; 

Opportunity for Pubic Hearing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed action; determination 

with request for comments and notice of 

opportunity for public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. EPA has made a 

proposed determination that the 

reduction in expenditures of nonFederal funds for the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) in support of its continuing 

air program under section 105 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), for the calendar 

year 2012 is a result of non-selective 

reductions in expenditures. This 

determination, when final, will permit 

the SCAQMD to receive grant funding 

for FY 2013 from the EPA, under section 

105 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments and/or requests for a 

public hearing must be received by EPA 

at the address stated below by April 17, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0052, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

2. Email: lance.gary@epa.gov or 

3. Mail: Gary Lance (Air–8), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Lance, EPA Region IX, Grants & Program 

Integration Office, Air Division, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105; phone: (415) 972–3992,fax: (415) 

947–3579 or email address at 

lance.gary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides 

grant support for the continuing air 

programs of eligible state, local, and 

tribal agencies. In accordance with 40 

CFR 35.145(a), the Regional 

Administrator may provide air pollution 

control agencies up to three-fifths of the 

approved costs of implementing 

programs for the prevention and control 

of air pollution. Section 105 contains 

two cost-sharing provisions which 

recipients must meet to qualify for a 

CAA section 105 grant. An eligible 

entity must meet a minimum 40% 

match. In addition, to remain eligible for 

section 105 funds, an eligible entity 

must continue to meet the minimum 

match requirement as well as meet a 

maintenance of effort (MOE) 

requirement under section 105(c)(1) of 

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405. 

Program activities relevant to the 

match consist of both recurring and 

non-recurring (unique,one-time only) 

expenses. The MOE provision requires 

that a state or local agency spend at least 

the same dollar level of funds as it did 

in the previous grant year, but only for 

the costs of recurring activities. 

Specifically, section 105(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. 

7405(c)(1), provides that ‘‘No agency 

shall receive any grant under this 

section during any fiscal year when its 

expenditures of non-Federal funds for 

recurrent expenditures for air pollution 

control programs will be less than its 

expenditures were for such programs 

during the preceding fiscal year.’’ 

Pursuant to CAA section 105(c)(2), 

however, EPA may still award a grant to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS