Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules 61077

made on a case-by-case basis. Records

responsive to a request will be furnished

without charge or at below the

established charge where Amtrak

determines, based on all available

information, that disclosure of the

requested information is in the public

interest because:

(i) It is likely to contribute

significantly to public understanding of

the operations or activities of Amtrak

and

(ii) It is not primarily in the

commercial interest of the requesting

party.

(3) To determine whether fee waiver

requirement in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of this

section is met, Amtrak will consider the

following factors:

(i) The subject of the request—

whether the subject of the requested

records concerns the operations or

activities of Amtrak. The subject of the

requested records must concern

identifiable operations or activities of

Amtrak with a connection that is direct

and clear, not remote or attenuated.

(ii) The informative value of the

information to be disclosed—whether

the disclosure is likely to contribute to

an understanding of Amtrak operations

or activities. The disclosable portions of

the requested records must be

meaningfully informative about

Amtrak’s operations or activities in

order to be found to be likely to

contribute to an increased public

understanding of those operations or

activities. The disclosure of information

that already is in the public domain, in

either a duplicative or a substantially

identical form, would not be as likely to

contribute to such understanding where

nothing new would be added to the

public’s understanding.

(iii) The contribution to an

understanding of the subject by the

public likely to result from disclosure

—whether disclosure of the requested

information will contribute to public

understanding. The disclosure must

contribute to the understanding of a

reasonably broad audience of persons

interested in the subject as opposed to

the individual understanding of the

requester. A requester’s ability and

expertise in the subject area as well as

the requester’s intention to effectively

convey information to the public shall

be considered. It shall be presumed that

a representative of the news media will

satisfy this consideration.

(iv) The significance of the

contribution to public understanding—

whether the disclosure is likely to

contribute significantly to public

understanding of Amtrak operations or

activities. The public’s understanding of

the subject in question, as compared to

the level of public understanding

existing prior to the disclosure, must be

enhanced by the disclosure to a

significant extent.

(4) To determine whether the fee

waiver requirement in paragraph

(k)(2)(ii) of this section is met, Amtrak

will consider the following factors:

(i) The existence and magnitude of a

commercial interest—whether the

requesting party has a commercial

interest that would be furthered by the

requested disclosure. Amtrak shall

consider any commercial interest of the

requesting party (with reference to the

definition of ‘‘commercial use’’ in

paragraph (c)(1) of this section), or any

person on whose behalf the requesting

party may be acting that would be

furthered by the requested disclosure.

Requesters shall be given an

opportunity to provide explanatory

information regarding this

consideration.

(ii) The primary interest in

disclosure—whether the magnitude of

the identified commercial interest of the

requester is sufficiently large in

comparison with the public interest in

disclosure, that disclosure is ‘‘primarily

in the commercial interest of the

requester.’’ A fee waiver or reduction is

justified where the public interest

standard is satisfied and that public

interest is greater in magnitude than any

identified commercial interest in

disclosure.

(5) Requests for a fee waiver will be

considered on a case-by-case basis,

based upon the merits of the

information provided. Where it is

difficult to determine whether the

request is commercial in nature, Amtrak

may draw inference from the requester’s

identity and the circumstances of the

request.

(6) Requests for a waiver or reduction

of fees must address the factors listed in

paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this section.

In all cases, the burden shall be on the

requesting party to present evidence of

information in support of a request for

a waiver of fees.

(l) Aggregating requests. A requester

may not file multiple requests at the

same time in order to avoid payment of

fees. Where Amtrak reasonably believes

that a requester or a group of requesters

acting in concert is attempting to divide

a request into a series of requests for the

purpose of avoiding fees, Amtrak may

aggregate those requests and charge

accordingly. Amtrak may presume that

multiple requests of this type made

within a 30-day period have been made

in order to avoid fees. Where requests

are separated by a longer period, Amtrak

may aggregate them only when there

exists a solid basis for determining that

aggregation is warranted. Multiple

requests involving unrelated matters

may not be aggregated.

§ 701.12 Other rights and services.

Nothing in this part shall be

construed to entitle any person, as of

right, to any service or to the disclosure

of any record to which such person is

not entitled under the FOIA.

Dated: November 6, 1997.

Sarah H. Duggin,

Vice President and General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–29717 Filed 11–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7531–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 216

[Docket No. 971023253–7253–01; I.D.

093097E]

Taking and Importing Marine

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals

Incidental to Rocket Launches

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition for

regulations and an application for a

small take exemption; request for

comment and information.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request

from the 30th Space Wing, U.S. Air

Force for a small take of marine

mammals incidental to missile and

rocket launches, aircraft flight test

operations and helicopter operations at

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA

(Vandenberg). As a result of that

request, NMFS is considering whether

to propose regulations that would

authorize the incidental taking of a

small number of marine mammals. In

order to issue such regulations, NMFS

must determine that these takings will

have a negligible impact on the affected

species and stocks of marine mammals.

NMFS invites comment on the

application and suggestions on the

content of the regulations.

DATES: Comments and information must

be postmarked no later than December

15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Michael Payne, Chief,

Marine Mammal Division, Office of

Protected Resources, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–

3226. A copy of the application may be
61078 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules

obtained by writing to the above

address, telephoning the person below

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Hollingshead, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–

2055, or Irma Lagomarsino, Southwest

Regional Office, NMFS, (310) 980–4016.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361

et seq.) (MMPA) directs the Secretary of

Commerce to allow, upon request, the

incidental, but not intentional taking of

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who

engage in a specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and regulations are issued.

Permission may be granted for periods

of 5 years or less if the Secretary finds

that the taking will have a negligible

impact on the species or stock(s), will

not have an unmitigable adverse impact

on the availability of the species or

stock(s) for subsistence uses, and

regulations are prescribed setting forth

the permissible methods of taking, and

the requirements pertaining to the

monitoring and reporting of such taking.

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’

in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an impact

resulting from the specified activity that

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect

the species or stock through effects on

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’

Description of Request

On September 30, 1997, NMFS

received an application for an

incidental, small take exemption under

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA from

the 30th Space Wing, Vandenberg to

take marine mammals incidental to

missile and rocket launches, aircraft

flight test operations, and helicopter

operations at Vandenberg.

Vandenberg is located on the southcentral coast of California. The base

covers approximately 98,000 acres in

western Santa Barbara County. The Air

Force’s primary missions at Vandenberg

are to launch and track satellites in

space, test and evaluate the United

State’s intercontinental ballistic missile

systems, and support aircraft operations.

As a nonmilitary facet of operations,

Vandenberg is also committed to

promoting commercial space launch

ventures.

Vandenberg anticipates a total of 10

launches annually for Minuteman and

Peacekeeper missiles from North

Vandenberg and a total of 20 launches

annually for space launches (6 Delta II,

3 Taurus, 2 Atlas, 3 Titan IV, 2 Titan II

and 4 Lockheed launch vehicles) from

South Vandenberg.

Launch operations are a major source

of noise. The operation of launch

vehicle engines produces significant

sound levels. Generally, four types of

noise occur during a launch. They are:

(1) Combustion noise from launch

vehicle chambers; (2) jet noise generated

by the interaction of the exhaust jet and

the atmosphere; (3) combustion noise

from the post-burning of combustion

products; and (4) sonic booms.

Noise disturbance from operations on

Vandenberg may cause negligible shortterm impacts to pinnipeds (seals and sea

lions) hauled out on the Vandenberg

coastline. The principal form of impacts

would be infrequent and unintentional

incidental harassment resulting from

noise generated by aircraft and by

missile and rocket launches. There is a

potential for launch noises and sonic

booms to cause a startle response and

flight to water for those harbor seals,

California sea lions and other pinnipeds

that may haul out on the coastline of

Vandenberg and on the Northern

Channel Islands (NCI). Launch noise is

expected to occur over the coastal

habitats in the vicinity of the

Vandenberg launch site during every

launch, while sonic booms may be

heard on NCI, specifically San Miguel

and Santa Rosa Islands, only during

certain launches of certain rocket types

(principally Titan IV). Because the noise

may potentially result in disturbance of

pinnipeds, an MMPA authorization is

required in order to exempt the

applicant from the penalties of the

MMPA for taking by harassment that

occurs in compliance with such

authorization.

Regulations, if issued, would replace

annual incidental harassment

authorizations issued to Vandenberg for

takings incidental to launches by

Lockheed Martin launch vehicles (62 FR

40335, July 28, 1997), McDonnell

Douglas Aerospace Delta II rocket

launches (61 FR 59218, November 21,

1996), Taurus launches (62 FR 734,

January 6, 1997) and Titan II and Titan

IV launches (61 FR 64337, December 4,

1996). In addition, these regulations

would authorize takings incidental to

Minuteman and Peacekeeper missile

launches, aircraft flight test operations

and helicopter operations, which have

not been authorized previously.

Information Solicited

NMFS requests interested persons to

submit comments, information, and

suggestions concerning the request and

the structure and content of the

regulations to allow the taking. NMFS

will consider this information in

developing proposed regulations to

authorize the taking. If NMFS proposes

regulations to allow this take, interested

parties will be given ample time and

opportunity to comment.

Dated: November 6, 1997.

David L. Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–29935 Filed 11–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F