14066 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

section 5335 reports may only submit data 

for transit services that they directly operate 

and purchase under contract from public 

agencies and/or private carriers. 

Separate and complete section 5335 reports 

must be submitted by or for each purchased 

transportation service provider that operates 

100 or more revenue vehicles for the 

purchased service during the maximum 

service period. The reporting requirements 

include the following major segments, which 

are based on information assembled through 

the National Transit Database Uniform 

System of Accounts: 

1. Capital report. 

2. Revenue report. 

3. Expense report. 

4. Nonfinancial service and operating data 

reports. 

5. Miscellaneous auxiliary questionnaires 

and subsidiary schedules. 

6. Vehicle Fleet Data. 

7. Data Declarations. 

(2) The section 5335 Reporting System 

includes two data declarations. 

(a) The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 

Certification. 

The CEO of each reporting agency is 

required to submit a certification with each 

annual section 5335 report. The certification 

must attest: 

• To the accuracy of all data contained in 

the section 5335 report; 

• That all data submitted in the section 

5335 report are in accord with section 5335 

definitions; 

• If applicable, that the reporting agency’s 

accounting system used to derive all data 

submitted in the section 5335 report is the 

system set forth in the National Transit 

Database Uniform System of Accounts and 

that a section 5335 report using this system 

was certified by an independent auditor in a 

previous report year; 

• If applicable, the fact that the reporting 

agency’s internal accounting system is other 

than the National Transit Database Uniform 

System of Accounts, and that its: (i) 

Accounting system uses the accrual basis of 

accounting, (ii) accounting system is directly 

translated, using a clear audit trail, to the 

accounting treatment and categories specified 

by the National Transit Database Uniform 

System of Accounts, and (iii) accounting 

system and direct translation to the National 

Transit Database Uniform System of 

Accounts are the same as those certified by 

an independent auditor in a previous 

reporting year; and 

• That a 100% count of trips and 

passenger mile data for each mode/type of 

service meets FTA requirements. 

(b) Auditor Statement on Section 5335 

Financial Data Reporting Forms and Section 

5307 or Section 5311 Data. 

Reporting agencies must submit with their 

section 5335 report a statement signed by an 

independent public accountant or other 

responsible independent entity such as a 

state audit agency. This statement must 

express an opinion on whether the financial 

data reporting forms in the section 5335 

report present fairly, in all material respects, 

the information required to be set forth 

therein in accordance with the National 

Transit Database Uniform System of 

Accounts. The statement shall also indicate 

whether any of the reporting forms or data 

elements do not conform to the section 5335 

requirements, and describe the discrepancies. 

The statement must consider both required 

and optional data entries. 

Each agency is required to file an Auditor 

Statement unless it received a written waiver 

from FTA. The criteria in either Condition I 

or Condition II for granting a financial data 

waiver are: 

Condition I. The reporting agency (1) has 

adopted the National Transit Database 

Uniform System of Accounts and (2) has 

previously submitted a section 5335 report 

that was compiled using the National Transit 

Database Uniform System of Accounts and 

was reviewed by an independent auditor; or 

Condition II. The reporting agency (1) uses 

an internal accounting system other than the 

accounting system prescribed by the National 

Transit Database Uniform System of 

Accounts, (2) uses the accrual basis of 

accounting, (3) directly translates the system 

and accounting categories, using a clear audit 

trail, to the accounting treatment and 

categories specified by the National Transit 

Database Uniform System of Accounts, and 

(4) has previously submitted a section 5335 

report that was compiled using the same 

internal accounting system and translation to 

the National Transit Database Uniform 

System of Accounts and was reviewed by an 

independent auditor. 

For agencies that have received a waiver, 

the CEO annual Certification must verify that 

the financial data meet one of the above two 

conditions. 

Additionally, all reporting agencies that are 

in or serve urbanized areas with populations 

of 200,000 or more and whose report covers 

100 or more vehicles in annual maximum 

service across all modes and types of service 

must have an independent auditor review all 

section 5335 data used in the section 5307 

formula allocation. The statement should 

discuss, by mode and type of service: 

Directional route miles, vehicle revenue 

miles, passenger miles, and operating cost, 

and include both directly operated and 

purchased service. The independent, 

certified public accountant shall perform the 

verification in accordance with the 

‘‘Statements on Standards for Attestation 

Engagements’’ issued by the American 

Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The 

specific procedures to be reviewed are 

described in the most recent Section 5335 

Reporting Manual. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

March, 2007. 

James S. Simpson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–5417 Filed 3–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

RIN 1018–AV10 

Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of 

Migratory Birds From Buildings 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, propose changes in the 

regulations governing migratory bird 

permitting. We propose to amend 50 

CFR part 21 to allow removal of 

migratory birds (other than federally 

listed threatened or endangered species, 

bald eagles, and golden eagles) from 

buildings in which the birds may pose 

a threat to themselves, to public health 

and safety, or to commercial interests. 

DATES: Send comments on this proposal 

by May 25, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments, please see 

‘‘Public Participation’’ below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George T. Allen, Wildlife Biologist, 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703–

358–1825. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

the Federal agency delegated the 

primary responsibility for managing 

migratory birds. The delegation is 

authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), 

which implements conventions with 

Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, 

Japan, and the Soviet Union (Russia). 

Raptors (birds of prey) are afforded 

Federal protection by the 1972 

amendment to the Convention for the 

Protection of Migratory Birds and Game 

Animals, February 7, 1936, United 

States-Mexico, as amended; the 

Convention between the United States 

and Japan for the Protection of 

Migratory Birds in Danger of Extinction 

and Their Environment, September 19, 

1974; and the Convention Between the 

United States of America and the Union 

of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia) 

Concerning the Conservation of 

Migratory Birds and Their Environment, 

November 26, 1976. A list of migratory 

bird species protected by the MBTA can 

be found at 50 CFR 10.13. 

To simplify removal of migratory 

birds from buildings in which their 

presence may be a threat to the birds, to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14067 

public health and safety, or to 

commercial interests, we propose to 

allow the removal of any migratory bird, 

except a threatened or endangered 

species, a bald eagle, or a golden eagle, 

from any building in which a bird might 

be trapped, without requiring a 

migratory bird permit to do so. The bird 

must be captured using a humane 

method and promptly released to the 

wild. This regulation does not allow 

removal of birds or nests from the 

outside of buildings without a permit. 

We believe that this regulatory 

addition will facilitate removal of birds 

from buildings—an action that would 

otherwise require a migratory bird 

permit. Our proposed changes are 

detailed below, in the Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation section of this 

document. 

Public Participation 

You may submit comments, identified 

by RIN 1018–AV10, by any of the 

following methods: 

• E-mail address for comments: 

BirdsinBuildings@fws.gov. Include RIN 

number 1018–AV10 in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Fax: 703–358–2217. 

• Mail: Chief, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, Mail Stop MBSP–4107, 

Arlington, VA 22203–1610. 

• Hand Delivery: Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax 

Drive, Room 4091, Arlington, VA 

22203–1610. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Following review and consideration 

of comments, we will issue a final rule 

on the proposed regulation changes. 

Instructions: When submitting 

electronic comments, please include 

your name and return address in your 

message, and identify it as comments on 

RIN 1018–AV10 in the subject line of 

your message. 

When submitting written comments, 

please include your name and return 

address in your letter and identify it as 

comments on RIN 1018–AV10. To 

facilitate compilation of the 

Administrative Record for this action, 

you must submit written comments on 

81⁄2-inch-by-11-inch paper. 

All comments on the proposed rule, 

including any personal information 

received, will be available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours at Room 4091 at the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, 4501 North Fairfax 

Drive, Arlington, VA 22203–1610. The 

complete file for this proposed rule is 

available, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the same 

address. You may call 703–358–1825 to 

make an appointment to view the file. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. An 

individual respondent may request that 

we withhold his or her home address 

from the rulemaking record, which we 

will honor to the extent allowable by 

law. There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. We will make all submissions 

from organizations or businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves 

as representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses available for 

public inspection in their entirety. We 

will not consider anonymous 

comments. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of This Regulation 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires 

each agency to write regulations that are 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this rule 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: (1) 

Are the requirements in the rule clearly 

stated? (2) Does the rule contain 

technical language or jargon that 

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the 

format of the rule (grouping and order 

of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to 

understand if it were divided into more 

(but shorter) sections? (A ‘‘section’’ 

appears in bold type and is preceded by 

the symbol ‘‘§ ’’and a numbered 

heading; for example: ‘‘§ 21.12-General 

exceptions to permit requirements.’’) (5) 

Does the description of the rule in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the preamble help you to understand 

the proposed rule? What else could we 

do the make the rule easier to 

understand? 

Send a copy of any comments that 

concern how we could make this rule 

easier to understand to: Office of 

Regulatory Affairs, Department of the 

Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20240. You also 

may e-mail comments to 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with the criteria in E.O. 

12866, this rule is not a significant 

regulatory action. The Office of 

Management and Budget makes the final 

determination of significance under E.O. 

12866. 

a. This proposed rule would not raise 

novel legal or policy issues. The 

proposed provision is in compliance 

with other laws, policies, and 

regulations. 

b. This rule would not have an annual 

economic effect of $100 million or more, 

or adversely affect an economic sector, 

productivity, jobs, the environment, or 

other units of government. A costbenefit and economic analysis thus is 

not required. There are negligible costs 

associated with this rule. 

c. This rule would not create 

inconsistencies with other agencies’ 

actions. The rule deals solely with 

governance of migratory bird permitting 

in the United States. No other Federal 

agency has any role in regulating 

activities with migratory birds. 

d. This rule would not materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. There are 

no entitlements, grants, user fees, or 

loan programs associated with the 

regulation of birds in buildings. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 

104–121)), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide the statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We have examined this rule’s 

potential effects on small entities as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, and have determined that this 

action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, because the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
14068 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

changes we are proposing are intended 

primarily to simplify removal of birds 

from structures in which the birds may 

either pose a threat to public health and 

safety or commercial interests, or be at 

risk themselves. 

The costs associated with this change 

to our regulations would be negligible or 

non-existent. Consequently, we certify 

that because this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis 

is not required. 

This rule is not a major rule under 

SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It would not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

a. This rule would not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. 

b. This rule would not cause a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions. 

c. This rule would not have 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we have determined the following: 

a. This rule would not ‘‘significantly 

or uniquely’’ affect small governments. 

A small government agency plan is not 

required. Actions under the proposed 

regulation would not affect small 

government activities in any significant 

way. 

b. This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year; i.e., it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630, the 

rule would not have significant takings 

implications. A takings implication 

assessment is not required. This rule 

would not contain a provision for taking 

of private property. 

Federalism 

This rule would not have sufficient 

Federalism effects to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism assessment 

under E.O. 13132. It would not interfere 

with the States’ ability to manage 

themselves or their funds. No significant 

economic impacts are expected to result 

from allowing individuals, businesses, 

or government offices to remove 

migratory birds from buildings. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that the rule would not unduly burden 

the judicial system and meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

We examined these regulations under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

There would be no new information 

collection requirements associated with 

this change to our regulations. We may 

not collect or sponsor, nor is a person 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have analyzed this rule in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. 432–437(f), and Part 516 of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior Manual 

(516 DM). A change to our regulations 

allowing the removal of migratory birds 

from buildings would not have a 

significant environmental impact. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), E.O. 

13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

evaluated potential effects on Federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that there are no potential 

effects. This rule would not interfere 

with the Tribes’ ability to manage 

themselves or their funds or to regulate 

migratory bird activities on tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(E.O. 13211) 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

E.O. 13211 addressing regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. Because this rule would 

affect only removal of birds from 

structures in limited circumstances, it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

E.O. 12866, and would not significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use. Therefore, this action is not a 

significant energy action and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Environmental Consequences of the 

Proposed Action 

The change we propose is to allow 

people to remove birds protected under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act from 

buildings. We do not believe that there 

are significant environmental impacts of 

this action. 

Socioeconomic. We do not expect the 

proposed action to have discernible 

socioeconomic impacts. 

Migratory bird populations. This rule 

would not alter the take of migratory 

birds from the wild. It would not change 

migratory bird populations. 

Endangered and Threatened Species. 

The proposed regulation is for migratory 

birds other than threatened or 

endangered species. It would not affect 

threatened or endangered species or 

habitats important to them. 

Compliance With Endangered Species 

Act Requirements 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that ‘‘The 

Secretary [of the Interior] shall review 

other programs administered by him 

and utilize such programs in 

furtherance of the purposes of this 

chapter’’ (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It 

further states that the Secretary must 

‘‘insure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out * * * is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

[critical] habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536 (a)(2)). 

The proposed change to our regulations 

would not affect listed species. 

Author 

The author of this rulemaking is Dr. 

George T. Allen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, 

Mail Stop 4107, Arlington, VA 22203–

1610. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, we propose to amend part 21 

of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows. 

PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS 

1. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 

Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703); Public Law 95–616, 

92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Public Law 

106–108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note following 16 

U.S.C. 703. 

2. Amend § 21.12 by: 

a. Revising the introductory paragraph 

and paragraph (a); 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14069 

b. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), 

and (d) as paragraphs (b) (1), (b)(2), and 

(c) and adding a heading to new 

paragraph (b); 

c. Adding a new heading to new 

paragraph (c); and 

d. Adding a new paragraph (d), to 

read as set forth below. 

§ 21.12 General exceptions to permit 

requirements. 

The following persons or entities 

under the following conditions are 

exempt from the permit requirements: 

(a) Employees of the Department of 

the Interior (DOI): DOI employees 

authorized to enforce the provisions of 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 

1918, as amended (40 Stat. 755; 16 

U.S.C. 703–711), may, without a permit, 

take or otherwise acquire, hold in 

custody, transport, and dispose of 

migratory birds or their parts, nests, or 

eggs as necessary in performing their 

official duties. 

(b) Employees of certain public and 

private institutions: 

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(c) Licensed veterinarians: 

* * * * * 

(d) General public: Any person may 

remove a migratory bird from the 

interior of a building or structure under 

the following conditions. If you need 

advice on dealing with a trapped bird, 

you should contact your closest Fish 

and Wildlife Service office or your State 

wildlife agency. 

(1) You may humanely remove a 

trapped migratory bird from the interior 

of a residence or a commercial or 

government building without a Federal 

permit if the migratory bird: 

(i) Poses a health threat (for example, 

through damage to foodstuffs); 

(ii) Is attacking humans, or poses a 

threat to human safety because of its 

activities (such as opening and closing 

automatic doors); 

(iii) Poses a threat to commercial 

interests, such as through damage to 

products for sale; or 

(iv) May injure itself because it is 

trapped. 

(2) You must use a humane method to 

capture the bird or birds. You may not 

use adhesive traps to which birds may 

adhere (such as glue traps) or any other 

method of capture likely to harm the 

bird. 

(3) After capture, you must promptly 

release the bird or birds to the wild in 

habitat suitable for the species. 

(4) If a bird is injured or orphaned 

during the removal, the property owner 

is responsible for promptly transferring 

it to a federally permitted migratory bird 

rehabilitator. 

(5) You may not lethally take a 

migratory bird for these purposes. If 

your actions to remove the trapped 

migratory bird are likely to result in its 

lethal take, you must possess a Federal 

Migratory Bird Permit. However, if a 

bird you are trying to remove dies, you 

must dispose of the carcass unless you 

have reason to believe that a museum or 

scientific institution might be able to 

use it. In that case, you should contact 

your nearest Fish and Wildlife Service 

office or your State wildlife agency 

about donating the carcass. 

(6) For birds of species on the Federal 

List of Threatened or Endangered 

Wildlife, provided at 50 CFR 17.11(h), 

you may need a Federal threatened or 

endangered species permit before 

removing the birds (see 50 CFR 17.21 

and 50 CFR 17.31). 

(7) You will need a permit from your 

regional migratory bird permits office to 

remove a bald eagle or a golden eagle 

from a building (see 50 CFR Part 22). 

(8) Your action must comply with 

State and local regulations and 

ordinances. You may need a State, 

tribal, or territorial permit before you 

can legally remove the bird or birds. 

(9) If a nest, eggs, or nestlings are 

present, you must seek the assistance of 

a federally-permitted migratory bird 

rehabilitator in removing them. The 

rehabilitator is then responsible for 

handling them properly. 

Dated: March 2, 2007. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E7–5120 Filed 3–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[I.D. 031407A] 

RIN 0648–AU03 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Salmon Bycatch 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has 

submitted Amendment 84 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (FMP). If approved, 

Amendment 84 would exempt vessels 

participating in an inter-cooperative 

agreement (ICA) to reduce salmon 

bycatch from Chinook and chum salmon 

savings area closures, and exempt 

vessels participating in non-pollock 

trawl fisheries from the chum salmon 

savings area. This action is intended to 

promote the goals and objectives of the 

FMP and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action is 

necessary to reduce salmon bycatch in 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area (BSAI). 

DATES: Comments on Amendment 84 

must be received on or before May 25, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer. 

Comments may be submitted by: 

• Mail to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802; 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK; 

• FAX to 907–586–7557; 

• E-mail to BSA84–A-NOA@noaa.gov 

and include in the subject line of the Email comment the document identifier: 

Amendment 84. E-mail comments, with 

or without attachments, are limited to 5 

megabytes; or 

• Webform at the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions at that site for submitting 

comments. 

Copies of Amendment 84 and the 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) 

prepared for this action may be obtained 

from the NMFS Alaska Region at the 

address above, from the Alaska Region 

website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov or 

by calling the Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, at (907) 

586–7228. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Anderson, 907–586–7228, or 

jason.anderson@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 

each regional fishery management 

council submit any FMP or FMP 

amendment it prepares to NMFS for 

review and approval, disapproval, or 

partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens 

Act also requires that NMFS, upon 

receiving an FMP amendment, 

immediately publish a notice in the 

Federal Register that the FMP or 

amendment is available for public 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS