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

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 tothe 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 tosanctuary 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 validreason 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,


### 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 thereduction 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