Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2347 

rulemaking process. Interactions with 

and between members of the public 

provide a balanced discussion of the 

issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking 

process. Anyone who wishes to be 

added to the DOE mailing list to receive 

future notices and information about 

this rulemaking should contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945, or 

via email at 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 7, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00483 Filed 1–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 655 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2012–0118] 

National Standards for Traffic Control 

Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways; Notification and Request for 

Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notification; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is 

incorporated in our regulations, 

approved by the Federal Highway 

Administration, and recognized as the 

national standard for traffic control 

devices used on all streets, highways, 

bikeways, and private roads open to 

public travel. Consistent with Executive 

Order 13563, and in particular its 

emphasis on burden-reduction and on 

retrospective analysis of existing rules, 

this document requests comments on 

potential formats for restructuring the 

MUTCD into two documents, one that 

would be subject to rulemaking and one 

that would contain supplemental 

information that is not subject to 

rulemaking. This document asks for 

responses to a series of questions 

regarding formats, types of material to 

be included in each document, 

implications on agency acceptance of 

the MUTCD, ease of use, and effects on 

future MUTCD updates. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver 

comments to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Dockets Management 

Facility, Room W12–140, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590, or fax comments to (202) 493– 

2251. Alternatively, comments may be 

submitted to the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments must include the docket 

number that appears in the heading of 

this document. All comments received 

will be available for examination and 

copying at the above address from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 

desiring notification of receipt of 

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or you 

may print the acknowledgment page 

that appears after submitting comments 

electronically. Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments in 

any one of our dockets by the name of 

the individual submitting the comment 

(or signing the comment, if submitted 

on behalf of an association, business, or 

labor union). Anyone may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 

19477–78). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the program discussed 

herein, contact Mr. Chung Eng, MUTCD 

Team Leader, FHWA Office of 

Transportation Operations, (202) 366– 

8043 or via email at chung.eng@dot.gov. 

For legal questions, please contact Mr. 

William Winne, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, (202) 366–1397, or via email at 

william.winne@dot.gov. Office hours are 

from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

You may submit or retrieve comments 

online through the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. 

The Web site is available 24 hours each 

day, 365 days each year. Please follow 

the instructions. Electronic submission 

and retrieval help and guidelines are 

available under the help section of the 

Web site. An electronic copy of this 

document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

home page at: http://www.archives.gov 

and the Government Printing Office’s 

Web page at: http:// 

www.access.gpo.gov/nara. 

Purpose of This Notification 

The FHWA is interested in examining 

how to provide a simpler, streamlined 

MUTCD through restructuring the 

content into two separate documents— 

one with material deemed critical to 

traffic control device design, application 

or traffic safety that would be subject to 

rulemaking, and one containing 

supplemental application information 

that would not be subject to rulemaking. 

This action promotes a more responsive 

and efficient government. It is 

consistent with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13563, and in 

particular its requirement for 

retrospective analysis of existing rules, 

with an emphasis on streamlining its 

regulations. This action is also 

consistent with Presidential 

Memorandum, Administrative 

Flexibility, which calls for reducing 

burdens and promoting flexibility for 

State and local governments. 

The purpose of this document is to 

present a discussion of potential formats 

for a restructured MUTCD as well as to 

provide descriptions and examples of 

the types of material that could 

potentially be moved from the MUTCD 

to the Applications Supplement, 

including examples showing two 

restructuring options with text from 

Chapter 2B of the 2009 MUTCD. The 

examples can be viewed at 

www.regulations.gov under the docket 

number listed in the heading of this 

document. The FHWA is seeking 

comments from all interested parties to 

help the FHWA in further examining 

these issues and in evaluating potential 

future alternative courses of action. 

Specifically, the FHWA seeks input on 

the type of material to be included in 

the MUTCD and the Applications 

Supplement, as well as the formats for 

both documents. This document also 

includes a set of specific questions for 

which the FHWA requests input. While 

there are specific questions presented 

on aspects associated with restructuring 

the MUTCD, comments and input may 

be offered on any part of this 

notification. 

Background 

The MUTCD is incorporated by 

reference within Federal regulations at 

23 CFR part 655, approved by the 

FHWA, and recognized as the national 

standard for traffic control devices used 

on all public roads. The FHWA has 

received comments from a variety of 

parties expressing concerns about the 

size and complexity in application of 

the MUTCD as it has evolved over the 

decades. To address those issues, the 

FHWA is exploring the possibility of 

separating the MUTCD into two 

documents. 

Since its inception in 1935, the 

MUTCD has grown from slightly over 

150 pages to more than 850 pages. The 

most significant expansion in the 

number of pages in the MUTCD has 

occurred in the last three editions, the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
2348 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 General information about the NCHRP Project 

20–07/Task 323 can be viewed at the following 

Internet Web site: http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/ 

TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3203. 

2The white papers and public comments are 

available on the project Web site: http:// 

mutcd.tamu.edu/. 

2000, 2003, and the 2009 Editions. The 

size and complexity of the MUTCD has 

significantly increased, in large part 

because of an expansion of the number 

of devices included in the MUTCD and 

the desire to provide more specifics in 

conveying the intent of the language in 

order to avoid uncertainty. Along with 

the expanded content, the layout of the 

MUTCD has changed over the years to 

its current format with four headings 

(Standard, Guidance, Option, and 

Support) and three font styles (regular, 

bold, and italic). The four headings of 

Standard, Guidance, Option, and 

Support are defined as: 

1. Standard—a statement of required, 

mandatory, or specifically prohibitive 

practice regarding a traffic control 

device. 

2. Guidance—a statement of 

recommended, but not mandatory, 

practice in typical situations. 

3. Option—a statement of practice 

that is a permissive condition and 

carries no requirement or 

recommendation. 

4. Support—an informational 

statement that does not convey any 

degree of mandate, recommendation, 

authorization, prohibition, or 

enforceable condition. 

The increase in the size and 

complexity of the MUTCD results in a 

lengthy rulemaking process for 

incorporating changes (new devices, 

clarifications, corrections, etc.). A larger 

and more complex MUTCD also makes 

it more difficult to find material within 

the manual because of the amount of 

information provided. In addition, some 

users of the MUTCD have expressed 

concerns that due to the amount of 

detail included, the MUTCD is 

becoming too prescriptive rather than 

allowing engineering judgment to 

optimize the traffic control device 

decision for a particular situation or 

location. 

In response to the interest for a 

simpler, streamlined MUTCD, the 

FHWA is requesting public comment on 

the option of splitting the material in 

the MUTCD into two separate 

documents: 

• MUTCD—The MUTCD itself would 

be the document incorporated by 

reference into the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) as the national 

standard for all traffic control devices. 

The publication of this document, and 

any subsequent updates, would be 

subject to the rulemaking process. It 

could contain Standard statements, and 

potentially Guidance statements that are 

considered to be critical to traffic 

control device design, application, or 

traffic safety, as well as Option 

statements that provide exceptions to 

these Standard and Guidance 

statements. 

• Applications Supplement—The 

second document would be an 

‘‘applications supplement’’ that would 

include recommendations and best 

practices and would be a companion 

document to the MUTCD. Material from 

the 2009 MUTCD that is not included in 

the next edition of the restructured 

MUTCD would form the core of the 

companion document. It is possible that 

the companion document would also 

contain useful information brought in 

from other sources such as ‘‘The Grade 

Crossing Handbook’’ and ‘‘The 

Roundabout Guide.’’ The companion 

document could be updated whenever 

needed without requiring rulemaking to 

do so. The Applications Supplement 

would not be incorporated by reference 

into the CFR, and compliance with it 

would be encouraged, but not legally 

required. 

The MUTCD and the initial edition of 

the Applications Supplement would 

both be available on the MUTCD Web 

site in electronic format and each 

document would include hotlinks to 

assist readers who use the electronic 

versions of the MUTCD and the 

Applications Supplement in navigating 

through the many cross-references that 

are contained within both documents. 

Hotlinks to cross-referenced chapters, 

sections, figures, and tables; pop-up 

definitions; links to external documents 

and Web sites; and links to official 

interpretations would be made 

available, similar to the current hotlinks 

version of the 2009 MUTCD available on 

the Web site today. 

Discussion of Restructuring 

Because of the large audience with 

interest in the MUTCD, there are 

numerous thoughts and opinions related 

to the type and amount of information 

that should be retained in the MUTCD. 

The FHWA has given initial 

consideration to the type of material to 

include in each document, balancing 

the desire to retain material deemed 

critical to traffic control device design, 

application or traffic safety in the 

MUTCD, while moving supplemental 

application information to the 

Applications Supplement. 

In addition to the efforts underway 

within the FHWA, the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program 

has initiated a parallel effort (NCHRP 

Project 20–07/Task 323) to develop a 

long-range vision and strategic plan for 

the MUTCD.1 The NCHRP effort is 

addressing many different issues related 

to the future of the MUTCD. The 

NCHRP project has developed a series of 

white papers on critical MUTCD issues 

and is soliciting public comment on 

those white papers.2 Examples of white 

paper topics include: The purpose of the 

MUTCD, the MUTCD target audience, 

the appropriate level of detail for 

content, and options for dividing the 

MUTCD into multiple documents. 

Readers are encouraged to review the 

background and supplementary material 

related to the past, present, and future 

of the MUTCD discussed in this 

research effort. Although both the 

FHWA staff and the NCHRP research 

team are coordinating their efforts, 

readers that have an interest in each 

activity should submit comments to 

both this request for comments and the 

NCHRP project Web site. 

The spectrum of ideas related to the 

amount of material to be contained in 

the MUTCD and the Applications 

Supplement has led the FHWA to 

develop two possible restructuring 

alternatives. 

1. Option A would retain Standard 

statements and important Guidance 

statements, along with associated 

Option statements in the MUTCD. 

Support statements and stand-alone 

Option statements (those that are not 

exceptions to the Standard and 

Guidance statements that were retained 

in the MUTCD) would be moved from 

the MUTCD to the Applications 

Supplement. 

2. Option B would move a greater 

amount of information from the MUTCD 

to the Applications Supplement, 

retaining in the MUTCD only Standard 

statements and any related Option 

statements that contain exceptions to 

the Standard statements. 

For both Options A and B, material from 

the 2009 MUTCD that is not included in 

the next edition of the restructured 

MUTCD would form the core of the 

Applications Supplement. To serve as a 

document that is easily relatable to the 

MUTCD provisions on the same subject, 

the Applications Supplement document 

would need to be written and organized 

in a manner that makes it a cohesive 

stand-alone document that is fully 

consistent with the MUTCD. Among the 

larger items that would likely be moved 

to the Applications Supplement would 

be most of the figures illustrating how 

to apply the provisions of the MUTCD, 

including all of the Typical 

Applications in Chapter 6H, as well as 

most of the material in chapters such as 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2349 

4C, 6G, and 6I. The Applications 

Supplement could potentially be 

expanded to include useful information 

brought in from other sources and could 

be updated whenever needed without 

requiring rulemaking to do so. 

The FHWA perceives several benefits 

to the development of a stand-alone 

Applications Supplement. For example, 

the Applications Supplement could 

include a chapter providing users with 

references on where to find subject area 

information regarding traffic control 

treatment of a particular roadway 

feature, such as roundabouts. Such a 

chapter would list sections in the 

MUTCD, as well as sections in the 

Applications Supplement, that users 

could reference for signing and 

markings at roundabouts, including 

treatment of pedestrians at roundabouts 

and how roundabouts relate to nearby 

at-grade railroad crossings. Another 

example is that supplemental material 

regarding emerging and innovative 

traffic control devices could be more 

easily disseminated and used by 

engineers interested in their 

applications, without the delays 

associated with updating the MUTCD. 

Discussion of Material in Separate 

Documents 

For the purpose of illustrating the 

separation of current 2009 MUTCD 

material into two documents, FHWA 

developed examples showing two 

possible options for Sections 2B.01 

through 2B.18 and Sections 2B.37 

through 2B.42 of Chapter 2B Regulatory 

Signs, Barricades, and Gates. These 

examples are available for review on 

www.regulations.gov under the docket 

number listed in the heading of this 

document. In order to make a 

comparison with the existing material in 

the 2009 MUTCD easier, no 

improvements were made in these 

examples to the text, figures, or tables of 

the existing 2009 MUTCD other than 

those directly related to the 

development of the alternative format. 

Readers are encouraged to view Options 

A and B, along with the comparison 

documents for each Option, which 

describe the revisions that were made in 

the development of each of the 

examples. The files illustrating Options 

A and B formatted for the MUTCD and 

the Applications Supplement are also 

embedded with hotlinks from the 

MUTCD to the Applications 

Supplement and vice versa in order to 

illustrate how users would interact with 

both documents. Where an ‘‘AS’’ in a 

blue box is placed to the left of the 

section heading in the MUTCD, a direct 

link to the same section in the 

Applications Supplement is available. 

Where an ‘‘M’’ in a blue box is placed 

to the left of the section heading in the 

Applications Supplement, a direct link 

to the same section in the MUTCD is 

available. In addition, all of the chapter, 

section, figure, and table titles, and all 

of the page numbers in the Applications 

Supplement have a parenthetical suffix 

of ‘‘(AS)’’ immediately following the 

‘‘2B’’ to distinguish the Applications 

Supplement from the MUTCD. Readers 

can access all of these files from the 

Docket. The following paragraphs 

explain some of the differences between 

the content and formatting used for 

Options A and B. 

There are only Standard statements in 

Section 2B.14 of the 2009 MUTCD. 

Please note in the Option A 

Applications Supplement that the title 

for this section is included in the 

Option A Applications Supplement 

along with parenthetical text that 

informs the reader that ‘‘there is no 

supplemental information for this 

section.’’ Accordingly, there is no ‘‘AS’’ 

in a blue box to the left of the Section 

2B.14 heading in the MUTCD. 

Because the Option B MUTCD is 

comprised almost exclusively of 

Standard statements with only an 

occasional related Option paragraph, 

showing Standard statements in bold 

font resulted in an awkward looking 

document that was almost entirely boldfaced type. As a result, the section titles 

were lost in the mix. Thus, regular font 

is used for the Standard statements and 

italicized font is used to distinguish the 

few Option paragraphs. Because italics 

are used for the Option statements in 

the MUTCD, the Option statements in 

the Option B Applications Supplement 

are also italicized for consistency. This 

resulted in a need for doing something 

different than italics for the Guidance 

statements in the Option B Applications 

Supplement. Because there are no 

Standard statements in the Option B 

Applications Supplement, bold-faced 

type was available for the Guidance 

statements to distinguish them from the 

Support statements. 

There are no Standard statements in 

Sections 2B.06 and 2B.07 of the 2009 

MUTCD. In the Option B Applications 

Supplement these sections were 

incorporated into Section 2B(AS).05 and 

the section titles were included as 

subheadings because of the length of the 

consolidated section. There are also no 

Standard statements in Section 2B.38 of 

the 2009 MUTCD. In the Option B 

Applications Supplement this section 

was incorporated into Section 

2B(AG).37 and the section title for 

Section 2B.37 was revised in both the 

Option B MUTCD and the Option B 

Applications Supplement to reflect this 

consolidation of material. Even though 

the only Standard statement in Section 

2B.37 of the Option B MUTCD relates to 

DO NOT ENTER signs, the reader is 

alerted to the fact that WRONG WAY 

signs are included in the corresponding 

section of the Option B Applications 

Supplement. Similarly, there are only 

Standard statements in Section 2B.14 of 

the 2009 MUTCD. In the Option B 

Applications Supplement the title for 

this section (which has been 

renumbered as Section 2B(AS).12) is 

included in the Option B Applications 

Supplement along with parenthetical 

text that informs the reader that ‘‘there 

is no supplemental information for this 

section.’’ Accordingly, there is no ‘‘AS’’ 

in a blue box to the left of the Section 

2B.12 heading in the MUTCD. 

For the purpose of this Request for 

Comments, it was not practical for 

FHWA to develop examples for the 

entire MUTCD; however, the FHWA has 

given some initial thought as to the 

separation of content in several other 

parts of the manual. In addition to most 

of the support paragraphs and standalone option paragraphs, following are 

examples of other items from some of 

the chapters that could be moved from 

the MUTCD to the Applications 

Supplement: 

MUTCD Part Sections that could be moved to the Applications Supplement 

Part 4 ........... Chapters 4A and 4B, Chapter 4C (with Standard statements either reduced to Guidance or moved to other places in Part 4), 

Section 4D.02, Section 4D.33, and Figures 4D–1, 4D–2, 4D–6 through 4D–20, 4E–1, 4E–2, 4E–3, and 4E–4. 

Part 6 ........... Sections 6G, 6H, and 6I. 

Part 8 ........... Section 8A.06, and Figures 8B–5, 8B–6, 8B–8, 8B–9, 8C–2, 8C–4 through 8C–10, and 8D–1. 

Part 9 ........... Figures 9B–5, 9B–6, 9B–7, 9B–8, 9C–1, 9C–2, 9C–4, 9C–5, 9C–6, and 9C–8. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
2350 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Questions 

The FHWA requests input on each of 

the following questions. In addition, 

comments and input may be offered on 

any part of this notice. 

1. Regardless of the ultimate 

restructuring format chosen, would you 

support separating the current material 

in the MUTCD into two documents? 

Please explain your reasoning for 

supporting or opposing the concept of 

having two documents. 

2. Referring to the examples shown 

for Chapter 2B, should the format of the 

MUTCD and the Applications 

Supplement remain consistent between 

the two documents? For example, 

should the same headings, such as 

‘‘Support’’ and ‘‘Option’’ be used in the 

Applications Supplement? Should the 

type of section, figure, and table 

numbering remain consistent between 

the MUTCD and the Applications 

Supplement? Should the sections in the 

Applications Supplement have a one-toone correspondence to the sections of 

the MUTCD, even if that means that 

some sections of the Applications 

Supplement would either be skipped or 

simply have a sentence that says 

something such as ‘‘No additional 

guidance is available for this section’’? 

3. Regarding the philosophy of the 

type of material to retain in the MUTCD 

versus the Applications Supplement, 

does Option A move enough material to 

the Applications Supplement, thus 

achieving the goal of a streamlined 

MUTCD, or does Option B better 

achieve the intended result while 

maintaining the appropriate balance to 

retain material deemed critical to traffic 

control device design and road user 

safety in the MUTCD? Please explain 

the reasoning for your response to this 

question. 

4. How would restructuring the 

MUTCD affect the approval process of 

the MUTCD in your State? If your State 

develops a supplement to the MUTCD 

or creates its own State MUTCD that is 

in substantial conformance with the 

National MUTCD, how would 

restructuring the National MUTCD 

impact your organization? 

5. Describe the use of the printed 

version of the MUTCD within your 

agency compared to the electronic 

version. Which users prefer the printed 

version and which users prefer the 

electronic version? Why? 

6. In addition to providing hotlinks 

between the new MUTCD and the 

Applications Supplement, would 

providing hotlinks in the Applications 

Supplement to supplementary 

documents or additional resources be 

helpful or more cumbersome for 

MUTCD users? Should the important 

elements of the additional resources be 

incorporated into the Applications 

Supplement? 

7. After the initial edition of the 

Applications Supplement is developed 

by the FHWA as a part of the process 

of developing the next edition of the 

MUTCD, should the FHWA continue to 

maintain and update the Applications 

Supplement, or should some other 

organization or group take on this 

responsibility? Please explain the 

reasoning for your response to this 

question. If you feel that another 

organization should be responsible for 

the Applications Supplement, please 

provide thoughts on the appropriate 

organization and why. 

8. Is there an advantage to the FHWA 

(or some other organization or group) 

making revisions to the Applications 

Supplement without seeking public 

comments and why? Should there be a 

structured process for making revisions 

to the Applications Supplement? If yes, 

what should this involve and who 

should be included in the process? How 

often should this occur? 

9. Should the FHWA consider other 

options for splitting MUTCD content 

into separate documents? Please 

explain. 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 

114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; 

and, 49 CFR 1.85. 

Issued on: December 20, 2012. 

Victor M. Mendez, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00373 Filed 1–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 242 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–SM–2012–0104; 

FXFR13350700640–134–FF07J00000] 

RIN 1018–AY85 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska—2014–15 

and 2015–16 Subsistence Taking of 

Wildlife Regulations 

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture; 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

establish regulations for hunting and 

trapping seasons, harvest limits, 

methods and means related to taking of 

wildlife for subsistence uses during the 

2014–15 and 2015–16 regulatory years. 

The Federal Subsistence Board is on a 

schedule of completing the process of 

revising subsistence taking of wildlife 

regulations in even-numbered years and 

subsistence taking of fish and shellfish 

regulations in odd-numbered years; 

public proposal and review processes 

take place during the preceding year. 

The Board also addresses customary and 

traditional use determinations during 

the applicable cycle. When final, the 

resulting rulemaking will replace the 

existing subsistence wildlife taking 

regulations. This rule would also amend 

the general regulations on subsistence 

taking of fish and wildlife. 

DATES: Public meetings: The Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils 

will hold public meetings to receive 

comments and make proposals to 

change this proposed rule on several 

dates between February 12 and March 

26, 2013, and then hold another round 

of public meetings to discuss and 

receive comments on the proposals, and 

make recommendations on the 

proposals to the Federal Subsistence 

Board, on several dates between August 

19 and October 30, 2013. The Board will 

discuss and evaluate proposed 

regulatory changes during a public 

meeting in Anchorage, AK, in January 

2014. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for specific information on dates and 

locations of the public meetings. 

Public comments: Comments and 

proposals to change this proposed rule 

must be received or postmarked by 

March 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Public meetings: The 

Federal Subsistence Board and the 

Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Councils’ public meetings will be held 

at various locations in Alaska. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific 

information on dates and locations of 

the public meetings. 

Public comments: You may submit 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov and search for 

FWS–R7–SM–2012–0104, which is the 

docket number for this rulemaking. 

• By hard copy: U.S. mail or handdelivery to: USFWS, Office of 

Subsistence Management, 1011 East 

Tudor Road, MS 121, Attn: Theo 

Matuskowitz, Anchorage, AK 99503– 

6199, or hand delivery to the Designated 

Federal Official attending any of the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with