11980 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 2015 / Notices 

5Such standardized physical markings would be 

in addition to the markings required by the FAA for 

purposes of registration. 

attendees and identifying an appropriate 

venue for the meeting. 

Request for Comment: NTIA invites 

public comment on the following issues 

from all stakeholders, including the 

commercial, academic, and public 

interest sectors, lawmakers, and 

governmental consumer protection and 

enforcement agencies. NTIA will use the 

comments to help establish an efficient, 

effective structure for the 

multistakeholder engagement and 

identify the substantive issues 

stakeholders wish to discuss. 

General 

1. The Presidential Memorandum asks 

stakeholders to develop best practices 

concerning privacy, transparency, and 

accountability for a broad range of UAS 

platforms and commercial practices. 

How should the group’s work be 

structured? Should working groups 

address portions of the task? 

2. Would it be helpful to establish 

three working groups with one focusing 

on privacy, one on transparency, and 

one on accountability? Should such 

groups work in serial or parallel? 

3. Would it be helpful for 

stakeholders to distinguish between 

micro, small, and large UAS platforms 

(e.g., UAS under 4.4 lbs., UAS between 

4.4 lbs. and 55 lbs., and UAS over 55 

lbs.)? Do smaller or larger platforms 

raise different issues for privacy, 

transparency, and accountability? 

4. What existing best practices or 

codes of conduct could serve as bases 

for stakeholders’ work? 

Privacy 

5. UAS can be used for a wide variety 

of commercial and private purposes, 

including aerial photography, package 

delivery, farm management, and the 

provision of Internet service. Do some 

UAS-enabled commercial services raise 

unique or heightened privacy issues as 

compared to non-UAS platforms that 

provide the same services? For example, 

does UAS-based aerial photography 

raise unique or heightened privacy 

issues compared to manned aerial 

photography? Does UAS-based Internet 

service raise unique or heightened 

privacy issues compared to wireline or 

ground-based wireless Internet service? 

6. Which commercial and private uses 

of UAS raise the most pressing privacy 

challenges? 

7. What specific best practices would 

mitigate the most pressing privacy 

challenges while supporting 

innovation? 

Transparency 

8. Transparent UAS operation can 

include identifying the entities that 

operate particular UAS, the purposes of 

UAS flights, and the data practices 

associated with UAS operations. Is there 

other information that UAS operators 

should make public? 

9. What values can be supported by 

transparency of commercial and private 

UAS operation? Can transparency 

enhance privacy, encourage reporting of 

nuisances caused by UAS flights, or 

help combat unsafe UAS flying? Can 

transparency support other values? 

10. How can companies and 

individuals best provide notice to the 

public regarding where a particular 

entity or individual operates UAS in the 

NAS? 

11. What mechanisms can facilitate 

identification of commercial and private 

UAS by the public? Would standardized 

physical markings aid in identifying 

UAS when the aircraft are mobile or 

stationary? 5 Can UAS be equipped with 

electronic identifiers or other 

technology to facilitate identification of 

UAS by the public? 

12. How can companies and 

individuals best keep the public 

informed about UAS operations that 

significantly impact privacy, antinuisance, or safety interests? Would 

routine reporting by large-scale UAS 

operators provide value to the public? 

What might such reporting include? 

How might it be made publicly 

available? 

13. What specific best practices would 

promote transparent UAS operation 

while supporting innovation? 

Accountability 

14. UAS operators can employ 

accountability mechanisms to help 

ensure that privacy protections and 

transparency policies are enforced 

within an organization. How can 

companies, model aircraft clubs, and 

UAS training programs ensure that 

oversight procedures for commercial 

and private UAS operation comply with 

relevant policies and best practices? Can 

audits, assessments, or reporting help 

promote accountability? 

15. What rules regarding conduct, 

training, operation, data handling, and 

oversight would promote accountability 

regarding commercial and private UAS 

operation? 

16. What specific best practices would 

promote accountable commercial and 

private UAS operation while supporting 

innovation? 

Dated: February 27, 2015. 

Lawrence E. Strickling, 

Assistant Secretary for Communications and 

Information. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05020 Filed 3–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD806 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its 

Habitat Committee to consider actions 

affecting New England fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Monday, March 23, 2015 at 9 a.m. and 

on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 9 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting address: The meeting will be 

held at the DoubleTree by Hilton, 363 

Maine Mall Road, South Portland, ME 

04106; telephone: (207) 775–6161; fax: 

(207) 756–6623. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Habitat committee will review the Plan 

Development Team analyses as 

requested on February 24, 2015. The 

committee also plans to review the 

Advisory Panel recommendations for 

preferred alternatives. They will also 

develop final preferred alternative 

recommendations for the full Council. 

They will discuss other business as 

necessary. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before these groups for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 2015 / Notices 11981 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 

(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to 

the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: February 27, 2015. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05025 Filed 3–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD671 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Essential Fish Habitat 5-Year Review 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

availability of the Draft Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) 5-Year Review. The 

purpose of Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year 

Review is to gather relevant new 

information and determine whether 

modifications to existing EFH 

descriptions and designations are 

warranted, in compliance with the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act and implementing regulations. If 

EFH modifications are warranted, an 

amendment to the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) may be initiated. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by April 6, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

Draft Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review 

may also be obtained on the internet at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/

documents/2015_draft_efh_review.pdf. 

You may submit comments on this 

document, identified by NOAA–NMFS– 

2015–0037, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

NOAA-NMFS-2015-0037, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Peter Cooper, NMFS/SF1, 1315 EastWest Highway, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, SSMC3, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Cooper by phone at (301) 427– 

8503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) includes 

provisions concerning the identification 

and conservation of essential fish 

habitat (EFH) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). 

EFH is defined in 50 CFR 600.10 as 

‘‘those waters and substrate necessary to 

fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity.’’ NMFS must 

identify and describe EFH, minimize to 

the extent practicable the adverse effects 

of fishing on EFH, and identify other 

actions to encourage the conservation 

and enhancement of EFH (§ 600.815(a). 

EFH maps are presented online in the 

NMFS EFH Mapper (http://www.

habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitat

mapper.html). Federal agencies that 

authorize, fund, or undertake actions 

that may adversely affect EFH must 

consult with NMFS, and NMFS must 

provide conservation recommendations 

to Federal and state agencies regarding 

any such actions (§ 600.815(a)(9)). 

In addition to identifying and 

describing EFH for managed fish 

species, a review of EFH must be 

completed every 5 years, and EFH 

provisions must be revised or amended, 

as warranted, based on the best 

available scientific information. The 

EFH 5-year review should evaluate 

published scientific literature, 

unpublished scientific reports, 

information solicited from interested 

parties, and previously unavailable or 

inaccessible data. NMFS announced the 

initiation of this review and solicited 

information for this review from the 

public in a Federal Register notice on 

March 24, 2014 (79 FR 15959). The 

initial public review/submission period 

ended on May 23, 2014. 

This document is a draft 5-year 

review of EFH for Atlantic HMS, which 

include tunas (bluefin, bigeye, albacore, 

yellowfin, and skipjack), oceanic sharks, 

swordfish, and billfishes (blue marlin, 

white marlin, sailfish, roundscale 

spearfish, and longbill spearfish). The 

HMS EFH 5-year review considers data 

available regarding Atlantic HMS and 

their habitats that have become 

available since 2009 that were not 

included in Final Amendment 1 to the 

2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS (June 

1, 2010, 75 FR 30484); Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP (June 1, 2010, 75 FR 30484); 

and the interpretive rule that described 

EFH for roundscale spearfish 

(September 22, 2010, 75 FR 57698), 

which are the most recent documents 

that described EFH for Atlantic HMS 

species. Upon completion of the HMS 

EFH 5-year Review, NMFS will analyze 

the information gathered through the 

EFH review process and determine if 

subsequent revision or amendment of 

EFH if warranted. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq., and 1801 

et seq. 

Dated: March 2, 2015. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05079 Filed 3–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Renewal of Department of Defense 

Federal Advisory Committees 

AGENCY: DoD. 

ACTION: Renewal of Federal Advisory 

Committee. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(DoD) is publishing this notice to 

announce that it is renewing the charter 

for the Board on Coastal Engineering 

Research (‘‘the Board’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Freeman, Advisory Committee 

Management Officer for the Department 

of Defense, 703–692–5952. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

committee’s charter is being renewed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES