        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 300 and 665
        [Docket No. 080225267-9319-02]
        RIN 0648-AW49
        International Fisheries Regulations; Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Pelagic Fisheries; Hawaii-based Shallow-set Longline Fishery

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would remove the annual limit on the number of fishing gear deployments (sets) for the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery. The rule would also increase the current limit on incidental interactions that occur annually between loggerhead sea turtles and shallow-set longline fishing. The proposed rule is intended to increase opportunities for the shallow-set fishery to sustainably harvest swordfish and other fish species, without jeopardizing the continued existence of sea turtles and other protected resources. This proposed rule would also make several administrative clarifications to the regulations.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by August 3, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on this proposed rule, identified by 0648-AW49, may be sent to either of the following addresses:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov; or

          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required name and organization fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FMP) and Amendment 18, including a final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), are available from www.regulations.gov, and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, www.wpcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adam Bailey, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2248.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        This proposed rule is also accessible at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.
        Background
        Pelagic fisheries in the U.S. western Pacific are managed under the Pelagics FMP, developed by the Council and approved and implemented by NMFS. The Council has submitted Amendment 18 and draft regulations to NMFS for review under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This proposed rule would implement the management provisions recommended in Amendment 18. This proposed rule would also make housekeeping changes to the pelagic fishing regulations, not related to Amendment 18.
        The Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery began in late 2004 to test the effectiveness in the Pacific of a hook-and-bait combination that was found to dramatically reduce interactions with sea turtles when tested in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. A combination of circle hooks and mackerel-type bait was found to reduce interactions with leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles by 67 and 92 percent, respectively, in the Atlantic. A final rule, published and effective on April 2, 2004 (69 FR 17329), established a limited “model” Hawaii-based shallow-set swordfish fishery requiring the use of circle hooks and mackerel-type bait. To test the effectiveness of the gear combination and measure its impact on the environment, fishing effort in the model Hawaii fishery was limited to 2,120 sets, roughly 50 percent of the 1994-99 annual average number of sets. Those sets were distributed equally among permit holders who applied each year to participate in the fishery. As an additional safeguard, a limit was implemented on the number of unintended interactions with sea turtles that could occur in the shallow-set fishery. The fishery would be closed for the remainder of the calendar year if either interaction limit was reached.
        Under the requirements implemented by that 2004 final rule, vessel operators in the Hawaii-based shallow-set fishery must currently use large circle hooks and mackerel-type bait. The fishery operates under a set certificate program that ensures that the fleet does not make more than a total of 2,120 shallow-sets per year. The fleet may not interact with (hook or entangle) more than 17 loggerhead sea turtles or 16 leatherback sea turtles each year. NMFS requires every vessel to carry an observer when shallow setting.
        The current sea turtle interaction limits do not represent the upper limit of interactions that would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of sea turtles, but instead are the annual number of sea turtle interactions anticipated to occur in this fishery, as calculated by multiplying expected fishing effort by interaction rates derived from studies using circle hooks and mackerel bait in U.S. longline fisheries in the Atlantic.

        The use of large circle hooks and mackerel-type bait in Hawaii's shallow-set longline fishery has reduced sea turtle interaction rates by approximately 90 percent for loggerheads and 83 percent for leatherbacks, compared to the previous period 1994-2002 when the fishery was operating without these requirements. The fishery has been closed once, in 2006, as a result of reaching an interaction limit. See www.fpir.noaa.gov/SFD/SFD_turtleint.html for a history of shallow-set fishery interactions with loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Because this gear combination has proven to be highly effective in reducing sea turtle interaction rates, the Council examined and considered a range of management alternatives that would allow increased shallow-set fishing effort. An increase in fishing effort would be associated with an increase in the allowable associated sea turtle interaction limits. The shallow-set certificate program used to govern the effort limit would be removed. This proposed rule intends to optimize the harvest of swordfish and other fish, without jeopardizing the continued existence and recovery of threatened and endangered sea turtles and other protected species. The proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act goals to achieve optimum yield from the shallow-set fishery, while minimizing bycatch and associated mortality.
        A range of management alternatives was identified during the development of this proposed rule, as described in the summary of the SEIS in the Classification section below. Under all analyzed management alternatives, other measures that are currently applicable to the fishery would remain unchanged, including, but not limited to, limited access permits, vessel and gear marking requirements, vessel length restrictions, Federal catch and effort logbooks, 100-percent observer coverage, large longline restricted areas around the Hawaiian Archipelago, vessel monitoring system (VMS), annual protected species workshops, and the use of sea turtle, seabird, and marine mammal handling and mitigation gear and techniques.

        This proposed rule would remove the annual limits on shallow-set fishing effort and the requirements of the shallow-set certificate program found at 50 CFR 665.33, the related prohibitions at 50 CFR 665.22, and the definition of a shallow-set certificate found at 50 CFR 665.12. The annual limits for sea turtle interactions would be revised in 50 CFR 665.33. Also in that section, the Regional Administrator would be required to publish an annual notification in the Federal Register of the applicable annual sea turtle interaction limits, and if an interaction limit is exceeded in any one calendar year, the annual limit for that sea turtle species would be adjusted downward the following year by the number of interactions by which the limit was exceeded.

        In addition to Amendment 18's recommended modifications to the shallow-set effort and turtle interaction measures, this proposed rule would make several technical clarifications to the longline regulations, unrelated to Amendment 18. First, this proposed rule would clarify the technical specifications regarding required circle hooks. In a final rule published on November 15, 2005, NMFS implemented a requirement for Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishermen to use circle hooks, size 18/0 or larger with an offset of 10 degrees (70 FR 69282). The wording of this requirement was intended to mirror the requirement for Atlantic longline fishing, which require the use of circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees (69 FR 40734; July 6, 2004). The November 2005 final rule for the western Pacific shallow-set fishery inadvertently omitted the phrase “not to exceed.” This proposed rule would correct the error. The result would be that shallow-set longline fishermen could use hooks with a range of offset from zero to 10 degrees.
        The second proposed technical change to longline regulations would clarify the requirement to carry line clippers, including the design specifications, on vessels registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit. On March 28, 2000, NMFS published a final rule that implemented several measures designed to mitigate injuries to sea turtles by the Hawaii longline pelagic fishery, including requirements to carry and use line clippers, dip nets, and dehookers (65 FR 16347). In a subsequent final rule relating to sea turtle mitigation measures (70 FR 69282, November 15, 2005), the requirements in 50 CFR 665.32 specifically relating to line clippers were inadvertently omitted. This proposed rule would correct the error. The corrected regulation would require fishermen to carry on board their vessels and use line cutters meeting NMFS design specifications. The proposed rule would also redesignate several paragraphs in 50 CFR 665.32 for organizational clarity.

        In the third technical clarification, this proposed rule would remove two regulations that have been superseded by more stringent regulations. In 50 CFR 665.22, paragraph (gg) prohibits shallow-set longline fishing from a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit north of the Equator with hooks other than circle hooks. That paragraph was superseded by paragraph (jj), which prohibits such fishing from a vessel registered under any western Pacific longline permit. Similarly, paragraph (hh) prohibits shallow-set longline fishing from a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit north of the Equator with bait other than mackerel-type bait. That paragraph was superseded by paragraph (kk), which prohibits such fishing from a vessel registered for use under any western Pacific longline permit. Thus, paragraphs (gg) and (hh) would be removed.
        Finally, a technical clarification would be made to the high seas fishing regulations to correct a reference to western Pacific domestic fishing regulations. In 50 CFR 300, paragraph (1)(v) incorrectly refers to Pacific longline reporting requirements at 50 CFR 660.14. This reference would be corrected to refer to the requirements at 50 CFR 665.14.
        Public comments on this proposed rule must be received by close of business on August 3, 2009, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Pelagics FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        A final SEIS is included with Amendment 18. A notice of availability of the draft SEIS was published on August 22, 2008 (73 FR 49667). To reduce the complexity of the SEIS analyses, the proposal was divided into three topic areas, each with its own range of alternatives as summarized below.
        Topic 1: Shallow-set Longline Fishing Effort Limits
        The fishery is currently limited to 2,120 shallow sets per year, which is half the average annual fishing effort during 1994-99. The existing annual sea turtle interaction limits of 17 loggerhead sea turtles and 16 leatherback sea turtles were determined based on experimental (Atlantic Ocean) interaction rates multiplied by the 2,120 set limit. Under Alternatives 1A-1E below, the annual sea turtle interaction limits for the fishery were similarly predicted using observed Pacific Ocean sea turtle interaction rates multiplied by each alternative's effort limit. In the case of Alternative 1F (remove effort limit), revised sea turtle interaction limits were recommended by the Council, taking into account the potential for reasonable increases in fishing effort, as well as likely impacts on sea turtle populations.

          Alternative 1A: No action; continue the current annual set limit. Under this alternative, the maximum annual limit on the number of shallow-sets would remain at 2,120.

          Alternative 1B: Allow up to 3,000 sets per year. This effort limit was chosen as a middle-ground effort alternative in-between the current set limit and the average annual effort during 1994-99 (approximately 4,240 sets).

          Alternative 1C: Allow up to 4,240 shallow sets per year. This effort limit represents the average number of annual sets during 1994-99, or double the current set limit of 2,120.

          Alternative 1D: Allow up to 5,500 shallow sets per year. This effort limit is nearly the annual maximum number of sets for any one year from 1994-99.

          Alternative 1E: Set effort level commensurate with current conditions and the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of North Pacific swordfish stock (about 9,925 sets per year). This effort limit would take into account catches by other longline fleets and the portion of the total swordfish catch already made by the Hawaii fleet. Current domestic and foreign swordfish landings in the North Pacific amount to about 14,500 mt, which, according to a recent stock assessment, amounts to about 60 percent of an estimated MSY of 22,284 mt. Given that MSY and a current swordfish catch by the Hawaii-based fishery of between 850 to 1,637 mt, the amount of effort to catch the remaining available 7,784 mt of additional swordfish would be about 9,925 sets per year. The effort limit under this alternative would be adjusted over time, as appropriate.

          Alternative 1F (preferred): Remove fishing effort limits, increase the annual sea turtle interaction limit to 46 interactions with loggerhead sea turtles, and retain the current limit of 16 interactions with leatherback sea turtles. This alternative would also retain all other shallow-set fishery management measures.
        Topic 2: Fishery Participation
        Shallow-set fishing effort is currently administered through a set certificate program. The 2,120 set certificates are allocated equally among permit holders who indicate that they wish to receive them. A set certificate must be attached to each daily fishing log for shallow-set longline fishing. The set certificates may be sold, traded, or otherwise exchanged among other permit holders in the Hawaii-based longline fleet.

          Alternative 2A: No action; continue the set certificate program. For each shallow set made north of the Equator, vessel operators would continue to be required to possess and submit one valid shallow-set certificate for each shallow set made. The number of certificates could increase under Topic 1, Alternatives 1B-1E.

          Alternative 2B: Discontinue the set certificate program (preferred). Shallow-set certificates would no longer be issued. For those management alternatives in Topic 1 that include effort limits, NMFS would account for all shallow sets on a fleet-wide basis through routine fishery monitoring and observer placement, and the fishery would close for the remainder of the year, if and when an annual set limit was reached.
        Topic 3: Time-Area Closures
        Time-area closures were considered by the Council as a way to increase annual fishery profits through potential reductions in the number of sea turtle interactions that may occur during January through March. Interaction rates for loggerhead sea turtles have typically been highest during this period, and it has been hypothesized that, in areas where swordfish and loggerhead sea turtle habitats may overlap, reducing fishing effort could increase fishery profits by reducing the risk of exceeding a sea turtle interaction limit very early in the year, which would close the fishery when there were still many more shallow sets allowed to be made.

          Alternative 3A: No action; do not implement time-area closures (preferred). Fishermen would continue to strive to minimize sea turtle interactions under the existing sea turtle handling and mitigation requirements and guidance.

          Alternative 3B: Implement a January time-area closure. The area closure would be located between 175° W and 145° W longitude and encompass the sea surface temperature band of 17.5° to 18.5° C. The latitude of this temperature band varies over time, but in January it is generally located near 31° to 32° N. Research has suggested that the area between sea surface temperatures of 17.5° to 18.5° C may be an area of high loggerhead sea turtle concentrations, based on historical and contemporary distribution and foraging studies, and observed loggerhead sea turtle interactions with the fishery. The month of January was selected because it may be that the number of loggerhead interactions during January is pivotal to whether or not the fishery will reach its annual sea turtle interaction limit before all allowable shallow sets are deployed. For example, in 2006, the fishery interacted with eight loggerheads in January and the fishery reached the limit of 17 in mid-March. In 2007, the fishery did not interact with any loggerheads during January, but had interacted with 15 loggerheads by the end of the first quarter, and still did not reach the annual sea turtle interaction limit.

          Alternative 3C: Implement in-season time-area closures. Under Alternative 3C, the sea surface temperature-based area closure described for Alternative 3B would be implemented only in those years in which 75 percent of the annual loggerhead turtle limit was reached during the first quarter, and the closure would remain in effect for the remainder of the first quarter. As with Alternative 3B, this alternative is being considered as a way to increase annual fishery profits through reductions in the number of turtle interactions that occur in the first quarter of each year. This alternative differs from 3B in that its implementation would be contingent on relatively high numbers of sea turtle interactions during the first quarter.
        Under the preferred alternatives, Amendment 18 and this proposed rule would remove the effort limit. The Loggerhead sea turtle interaction limit would be increased to 46, and the leatherback sea turtle interaction limit would remain unchanged at 16. The set certificate program would be eliminated. No time/area closures would be implemented. Under these alternatives, shallow-set fishing effort would not be limited, and could increase to historic levels of 4,000 to 5,000 sets per year (3.4 to 4.2 million hooks/yr). Some increased participation in the shallow-set fishery is anticipated with fishermen from the Hawaii-based deep-set tuna fishery moving into the fishery as a result of quotas being established for bigeye tuna. Entry into the Hawaii longline fishery, including both shallow- and deep-set techniques, would remain limited to 164 vessels.
        Based on the information in the draft SEIS, as compared to the no-action alternative, implementing the preferred alternatives would not have significant adverse impacts on target (swordfish) stocks because harvests would not exceed MSY. The preferred alternatives are not expected to significantly alter fishing operations, and catch and discard rates of non-target fish species would remain at an estimated 6-7 percent of the fishery's total annual catch. Resulting fishing mortality of non-target fish species would be expected to be a minor fraction of Pacific-wide catches and well below known MSY levels.
        Implementing the preferred alternatives would have no adverse impacts to essential fish habitat or habitat areas of particular concern. The preferred alternatives are expected to affect listed marine mammals, but are not likely to adversely affect Hawaiian monk seals, and blue, fin, sei, sperm, and North Pacific Right whales. The preferred alternatives may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, humpback whales, and loggerhead, leatherback, olive ridley, green, and hawksbill sea turtles. Under the preferred alternatives, other marine mammal interactions are expected to continue to be relatively low. The preferred alternatives are consistent with the October 2008 Biological Opinion's Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions.
        The fishery will likely result in interactions with Laysan and black-footed albatrosses, but the fishery is not expected to result in a significant impact on any albatross populations, including the endangered short-tailed albatross. No significant cumulative impacts or environmental justice issues were identified.

        The complete analysis of the alternatives is contained in Amendment 18 and final SEIS, and is not repeated here. Copies of the environmental analytical documents are available from www.regulations.gov and the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the proposed rule. A summary of the IRFA follows:

          This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. There are no disproportionate economic impacts from this rule based on home port, gear type, or relative vessel size. There are no recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance costs associated with this rulemaking. In the absence of relevant cost data, gross revenue is used as proxy for profitability.
          Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule applies

          There are approximately 30 active Hawaii-based shallow-set swordfish longline vessels, and an indeterminate number of non-active permit holders that may be affected by this rulemaking. All are considered to be small entities (fish-harvesting business) under the definition provided by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as follows: independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and having annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million. Between 2005 and 2007, 29 to 37 vessels participated in the shallow-set longline fishery, and the average revenue earned by the vessels was $225,227. In addition, it is believed that the majority of participants are also active in the deep-set longline fishery during the course of a year. Thus, their shallow-set revenues represent one portion of their total revenue. In 2007, the overall average (combined deep-set and shallow-set longline fisheries) ex-vessel revenue was $62.6 million realized by 129 active vessels. On a per-vessel basis, this yields an average ex-vessel revenue of $486,039 per vessel, still far below the $4.0 million threshold.
          Economic Impacts

          Preferred Alternative 1F would be expected to have no adverse economic impact on the 30 individual vessels comprising the 2008 fishery. In 2007, 29 vessels made only 1,497 sets. By interpolating this number, the 30 vessels fishing in 2008 are expected to make approximately 1,549 sets. Since the fishery had reopened in 2004, it has never approached the current cap of 2,120 sets. Therefore, this rule would lift a constraint that has not been historically tested by the present participants in the fishery. The elimination of the cap, therefore, would be expected to have no economic impact on the 30 participants in the fishery in 2009. In the long term, removal of the set limit is expected to allow for the entry of new vessels into the fishery, increasing available rents to the fishery as a whole. This is discussed at length in the Regulatory Impact Review (see ADDRESSES).
          Because the fishery was closed one year as a result of reaching the present loggerhead interaction limit of 17, the increase in allowable turtle interactions for loggerheads to 46 would theoretically translate to a potential increase in gross revenues and vessel profitability that could be measured by comparing the total revenues associated with the old interaction cap and the new interaction cap. The continuation in allowable leatherback interactions, however, would theoretically have no economic impact to the fishery in the short run since, historically, the leatherback cap of 16 has not been reached. However, data on the relationship between turtle interactions and catch are uncertain because of the newness of the managed fishery and the lack of data points. Therefore, those economic impacts would be indeterminate in the short term.
          Preferred Alternative 2B, the removal of the requirement for set certificates, will have a minimal yet positive impact on individual vessel owners that would have needed additional certificates to prosecute the fishery. The gross revenue derived from a set averages approximately $5,000, and the sale of set certificates by those owning a limited access permit has been reported by industry to be between $50 and $100, or 2-3 percent of gross revenue per set. This would reflect a cost savings to the vessel and an enhancement of profitability. Alternatively, those that have historically sold their certificates in lieu of fishing could lose $50 to $100 dollars per set per year. The private sale of certificates has not been tracked by NMFS due to privacy considerations and the lack of any legal requirements to do so. However, if opportunities outside of fishing for swordfish are assumed to be equal to or exceed profits that could be obtained by using their certificates to fish, the adverse impact to these permit holders would be three percent or less.
          Preferred Alternative 3A (no action) will have no impact on the fishery.
          There are no significant alternatives to this rulemaking that would have a less adverse or more beneficial economic impact than the preferred. All other alternatives considered regarding number of sets allowed, including the no-action alternative, are expected to have no adverse economic impact to the present participants in the fishery. The no-action alternative for elimination of set certificates would have no economic impact with regard to the present fishery and the permit holders selling certificates. Alternatives that would require the fishery to implement time/area closures would have an indeterminate economic impact on the fishery because the trade-offs between catch and turtle interactions that could close the fishery cannot be estimated with limited existing data. However, there are early indications that time/area closures would not have a substantial impact on turtle interactions or profitability of fishing operations.

        A formal section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act was conducted for Amendment 18 on the effects of the proposed action on ESA-listed marine species. In a Biological Opinion dated October 15, 2008, NMFS determined that fishing activities under Amendment 18 and its implementing regulations may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, seven ESA-listed species (Hawaiian monk seal, and blue, fin, sei, sperm, and North Pacific Right whales). NMFS also determined that the proposed action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, six other ESA-listed marine species that occur in the action area (humpback whale, and loggerhead, leatherback, olive ridley, green, and hawksbill sea turtles). This proposed rule is consistent with the October 2008 Biological Opinion's Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions.
        Additionally, an informal consultation was conducted under section 7 of the ESA with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the effects of the proposed rule on the endangered short-tailed albatross. The USFWS concurred with the NMFS determination that the proposed action is not expected to result in a significant impact on short-tailed albatross during 2009.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects

        50 CFR Part 300
        Administrative practice and procedure, International fishing and related activities.
        50 CFR Part 665
        Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Hawaiian Natives, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific remote island areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: June 16, 2009.
          Samuel D. Rauch III
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR chapters III and VI are proposed to be amended as follows:

          CHAPTER III

          PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart B, continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.

        2. In § 300.17, revise paragraph (b)(1)(v) to read as follows:

          § 300.17
          Reporting.
          (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (v) Pacific Pelagic Longline — Longline Logbook (§ 665.14(a) of this title);

          CHAPTER VI

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

        3. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 665 continues to read as follows:

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

          § 665.12
          [Amended]

        4. In § 665.12, remove the definition of “Shallow-set certificate.”
        5. In § 665.22, remove and reserve paragraphs (bb), (gg), and (hh), and revise paragraph (jj) to read as follows:

          § 665.22
          Prohibitions.
          (jj) Engage in shallow-setting from a vessel registered for use under any longline permit issued under § 665.21 north of the Equator (0° lat.) with hooks other than circle hooks sized 18/0 or larger, with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees, in violation of § 665.33(f).

        6. In § 665.32,
        a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2);
        b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) as paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7), respectively;
        c. Add new paragraph (a)(5);

        d. Revise introductory text to newly-redesignated paragraphs (a)(7)(ii) and (a)(7)(iii);
        e. Add new paragraph (a)(7)(iii)(C);
        f. In newly-redesignated paragraph (a)(7), redesignate paragraphs (a)(7)(iv), (a)(7)(vii), (a)(7)(viii), (a)(7)(ix), and (a)(7)(x) as paragraphs (a)(8), (a)(9), (a)(10), (a)(11), and (a)(12), respectively; and
        g. In newly-redesignated paragraph (a)(7), redesignate paragraph (a)(7)(v) as paragraph (a)(7)(iv), and redesignate paragraph (a)(7)(vi) as paragraph (a)(7)(v).
        The revisions and additions read as follows:

          § 665.32
          Sea turtle take mitigation measures.
          (a) * * *
          (1) Hawaii longline limited access permits. Any owner or operator of a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit must carry aboard the vessel line clippers meeting the minimum design standards specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, dip nets meeting the minimum design standards specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, and dehookers meeting minimum design and performance standards specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
          (2) Other longline vessels with freeboards of more than 3 ft (0.91 m). Any owner or operator of a longline vessel with a permit issued under § 665.21 other than a Hawaii limited access longline permit and that has a freeboard of more than 3 ft (0.91 m) must carry aboard the vessel line clippers meeting the minimum design standards specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, dip nets meeting the minimum design standards specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, and dehookers meeting the minimum design and performance standards specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
          (5) Line clippers. Line clippers are intended to cut fishing line as close as possible to hooked or entangled sea turtles. NMFS has established minimum design standards for line clippers. The Arceneaux line clipper (ALC) is a model line clipper that meets these minimum design standards and may be fabricated from readily available and low-cost materials (see Figure 1 to this section). The minimum design standards are as follows:
          (i) A protected cutting blade. The cutting blade must be curved, recessed, contained in a holder, or otherwise afforded some protection to minimize direct contact of the cutting surface with sea turtles or users of the cutting blade.
          (ii) Cutting blade edge. The blade must be capable of cutting 2.0-2.1 mm monofilament line and nylon or polypropylene multistrand material commonly known as braided mainline or tarred mainline.
          (iii) An extended reach handle for the cutting blade. The line clipper must have an extended reach handle or pole of at least 6 ft (1.82 m).
          (iv) Secure fastener. The cutting blade must be securely fastened to the extended reach handle or pole to ensure effective deployment and use.
          (7) * * *
          (ii) Long-handled dehooker for external hooks. This item is intended to be used to remove externally-hooked hooks from sea turtles that cannot be brought aboard. The long-handled dehooker for ingested hooks described in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section meets this requirement. The minimum design and performance standards are as follows: * * *
          (iii) Long-handled device to pull an “inverted V”. This item is intended to be used to pull an “inverted V” in the fishing line when disentangling and dehooking entangled sea turtles. One long handled device to pull an “inverted V” is required on the vessel. The minimum design and performance standards are as follows: * * *
          (C) The long-handled dehookers described in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section meet this requirement.

        7. In § 665.33, remove and reserve paragraphs (a), (c), and (e), and revise paragraphs (b) and (f) to read as follows:

          § 665.33
          Western Pacific longline fishing restrictions.
          (b) Limits on sea turtle interactions. (1) Maximum annual limits are established on the number of physical interactions that occur each calendar year between leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles and vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits while shallow-setting.
          (i) The annual limit for leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) is 16, and the annual limit for loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) is 46.
          (ii) If any annual sea turtle interaction limit in paragraph (b)(i) of this section is exceeded in a calendar year, the annual limit for that sea turtle species will be adjusted downward the following year by the number of interactions by which the limit was exceeded.

          (iii) No later than January 31 of each year the Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal Register of the applicable annual sea turtle interaction limits established pursuant to paragraphs (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of this section.
          (f) Any owner or operator of a vessel registered for use under any longline permit issued under § 665.21 must use only circle hooks sized 18/0 or larger, with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees, when shallow-setting north of the Equator (0° lat.). As used in this paragraph, an offset circle hook sized 18/0 or larger is one with an outer diameter at its widest point no smaller than 1.97 inches (50 mm) when measured with the eye of the hook on the vertical axis (y-axis) and perpendicular to the horizontal axis (x-axis). As used in this paragraph, the allowable offset is measured from the barbed end of the hook, and is relative to the parallel plane of the eyed-end, or shank, of the hook when laid on its side.

      [FR Doc. E9-14487 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AJ16

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Extension of the Public Comment Period on the Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the extension of the public comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). The comment period will provide the public, and Federal, State, and local agencies and Tribes with an opportunity to submit written comments on the proposal. Comments previously submitted for this proposal need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in any final decision.

          DATES:

          The original comment period is scheduled to close on June 14, 2004 (69 FR 19620, April 13, 2004). The public comment period for this proposal is now extended for an additional 30 days. We will now accept comments and information until 5 p.m. July 14, 2004. Any comments received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decisions on these actions.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
          1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W. 2605, Sacramento, California 95825.
          2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address, or fax your comments to 916/414-6712.

          3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to fw1crlf@r1.fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic filing of comments, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section below. In the event that our internet connection is not functional, please submit comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.
          All comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For general information, and for information about Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Kern, Marin, Mariposa, Merced, Napa, Plumas, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, and Tuolumne Counties, contact Wayne White, Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W. 2605, Sacramento, California 95825 (telephone 916/414-6600; facsimile 916/414-6712).
          For information about Los Angeles, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Ventura Counties, contact Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2394 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 (telephone 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).
          For information about areas in the San Gabriel Mountains of Los Angeles County or Riverside and San Diego Counties, contact Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008 (telephone 760/431-9440; facsimile 760/431-9624).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments Solicited

        It is our intent that any final action resulting from the April 13, 2004, proposed designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (69 FR 19620) will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. On the basis of public comment, during the development of the final rule we may find that areas proposed are not essential, appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2), or not appropriate for exclusion, in which case they would be removed from or made part of the final designation. We particularly seek comments concerning:
        (1) The reasons why any areas should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the species resulting from the designation;
        (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of California red-legged frog and its habitat, and which habitat or habitat components are essential to the conservation of this species and why;
        (3) Whether the primary constituent elements for the California red-legged frog as defined in this proposal are biologically and scientifically accurate, specifically,
        (a) Whether aquatic habitat used for breeding must have a minimum deep water depth of 0.5 meters (m) (20 inches (in));
        (b) Whether aquatic components must consist of two or more breeding sites located within 2 kilometers (km) (1.25 miles (mi)) of each other;
        (c) Should the primary constituent elements be more descriptive of the variations in habitat preference throughout the range of the subspecies;
        (4) Whether the two recently discovered populations of California red-legged frogs in Youngs Creek, in Calaveras County, and in artificial ponds in Nevada County are essential to the conservation of the subspecies and should be included in designated critical habitat;
        (5) Land use designations and current or planned activities in or adjacent to the areas proposed and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
        (6) Any foreseeable economic or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation, in particular, any impacts on small entities;
        (7) Some of the lands we have identified as essential for the conservation of the California red-legged frog are not being proposed as critical habitat. We specifically solicit comment on the inclusion or exclusion of such areas and:
        (a) Whether these areas are essential;
        (b) Whether these areas warrant exclusion; and
        (c) The basis for not designating these areas as critical habitat (section 3(5)(A) or section 4(b)(2) of the Act);
        (8) With specific reference to the recent amendments to sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) of the Act, we request information from the Department of Defense to assist the Secretary of the Interior in excluding critical habitat on lands administered by or under the control of the Department of Defense based on the benefit of an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) to the conservation of the species; and information regarding impacts to national security associated with proposed designation of critical habitat; and
        (9) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.

        If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). Please submit electronic comments in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AJ16” in your e-mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at phone number 916/414-6600. Please note that the e-mail address fw1crlf@r1.fws.gov will be closed out at the termination of the public comment period. In the event that our internet connection is not functional, please submit comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses 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. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. 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. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
        Background

        A final rule designating critical habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) was signed on March 1, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2001 (66 FR 14626).

        On June 8, 2001, the Home Builders Association of Northern California, California Chamber of Commerce, California Building Industry Association, California Alliance for Jobs, and the Building Industry Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Service's designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. Home Builders Ass'n of Northern California, et al. v. Norton, et al., Civ. No. 01-1291 (RJL) (D. D.C.). On November 6, 2002, the court entered a consent decree remanding the designation to the Service to conduct an economic analysis in accordance with the Tenth Circuit's decision in New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). The consent decree vacated the critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog with the exception of Units 5 and 31, units not known to be occupied by the frog, and ordered the Service to promulgate a proposed revised designation by March 2004, and a final revised rule by November 2005. A proposed rule designating critical habitat for the California red-legged frog was published on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19620). A public comment period on the proposal was open for 60 days following its publication. By this notice, we are hereby extending the public comment period on the proposal for an additional 30 days.
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is Douglas Krofta, Division of Conservation and Classification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia.

          Authority:

          The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: June 8, 2004.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 04-13400 Filed 6-9-04; 12:37 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 191018-0066]
        RIN 0648-BI33
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Regulatory Amendment 26

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement recreational sector management measures described in Vision Blueprint Recreational Regulatory Amendment 26 (Regulatory Amendment 26) to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Snapper-Grouper FMP), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). For the recreational sector, this proposed rule would remove the minimum size limits for queen snapper, silk snapper, and blackfin snapper, reduce the minimum size limit for gray triggerfish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the east coast of Florida, and modify the 20-fish snapper-grouper aggregate bag limit. The purpose of this proposed rule is to minimize regulatory discards to the extent practicable, improve regulatory compliance among fishers, and increase consistency among regulations.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by November 25, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2019-0077,” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0077, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            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), 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 required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 26 may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or the Southeast Regional Office website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/regulatory-amendment-26-vision-blueprint-recreational-measures. Regulatory Amendment 26 includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: mary.vara@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region is managed under the Snapper-Grouper FMP and includes queen snapper, silk snapper, blackfin snapper, and gray triggerfish, along with other snapper-grouper species. The Snapper-Grouper FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background

        During a series of stakeholder meetings in 2014, the Council gathered input from recreational and commercial fishers throughout the South Atlantic region to develop a long-term strategic plan for managing the snapper-grouper fishery. Based on that input, the Council developed the 2016-2020 Vision Blueprint for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery (Vision Blueprint). The Vision Blueprint identified the goals, objectives, strategies, and actions that support the Council's vision for the snapper-grouper fishery and centers around four goal areas: Science, Management, Communication, and Governance. In 2015, the Council prioritized action items in the Vision Blueprint that would be addressed through amendments to the Snapper-Grouper FMP over the next 5 years. As part of this prioritization, the Council chose to focus on actions that would address the seasonality of access to certain snapper-grouper species and measures in order to lengthen fishing seasons and better utilize existing annual catch limits (ACLs) in the snapper-grouper fishery. To accomplish this, the Council began development of two regulatory amendments to the Snapper-Grouper FMP to address the commercial and recreational sectors, respectively. Regulatory Amendment 26 includes modifications to recreational sector management measures in the snapper-grouper fishery based on stakeholder input. The purpose of the Council's actions in Regulatory Amendment 26 is to reduce regulatory discards, improve regulatory compliance among fishers, and increase consistency among regulations. Separately, the Council has submitted to NMFS the Vision Blueprint Commercial Regulatory Amendment 27 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, which would revise commercial management measures in the snapper-grouper fishery, and it is currently in the rulemaking process.

        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        For the recreational sector, this proposed rule would remove the minimum size limits for silk snapper, queen snapper, and blackfin snapper, reduce the minimum size limit for gray triggerfish in the EEZ off the east coast of Florida, and modify the snapper-grouper aggregate bag limit for the 20-fish aggregate.
        Minimum Size Limit for Queen Snapper, Silk Snapper, and Blackfin Snapper
        The deep-water complex includes yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper. This proposed rule would remove the 12 inches (30.5 cm) total length (TL) recreational minimum size limit for queen snapper, silk snapper, and blackfin snapper. The remaining species in the deep-water complex do not have a minimum size limit requirement. The current 12 inches (30.5 cm) TL minimum size limit for queen snapper, silk snapper, and blackfin snapper was implemented early in the management of the snapper-grouper fishery through Amendment 4 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP (56 FR 56016; October 31, 1991), before estimates of discard mortality were available, and prior to the creation of the various snapper-grouper species complexes by the Council. All of the species in the deep-water complex have high discard mortality as a result of the effects of barotrauma from being harvested from deep water. NMFS expects that removing the recreational minimum size limits would reduce discards and, therefore, discard mortality.
        Minimum Size Limit for Gray Triggerfish
        The current recreational minimum size limit for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic EEZ off the east coast of Florida is 14 inches (35.6 cm) fork length (FL) and 12 inches (30.5 cm) FL, off North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This proposed rule would reduce the recreational minimum size limit for gray triggerfish to 12 inches (30.5 cm) FL in the EEZ off the east coast of Florida. In 2015, the 12-inch (30.5-cm) FL minimum size limit was implemented for gray triggerfish in the EEZ off North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and a minimum size limit of 14 inches (35.6 cm) FL was implemented in the EEZ off the east coast of Florida (80 FR 30947; June 1, 2015). This was a precautionary action taken by the Council in response to their concerns about the status of the South Atlantic gray triggerfish stock, to align Federal regulations off the east coast of Florida with those in the Gulf of Mexico, and to achieve consistency between state and Federal regulations off the east coast of Florida. However, after the minimum size limit went into effect on July 1, 2015, stakeholders in Florida expressed concern to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) regarding an increasing number of gray triggerfish discards in south Florida where the average size of gray triggerfish is smaller than off northeast Florida. In response to that concern, the FWC reduced the recreational minimum size limit of gray triggerfish in Florida state waters from 14 inches (35.6 cm), FL to 12 inches (30.5 cm) FL in 2017, and requested that the Council develop consistent size limit regulations in Federal waters. Reducing the recreational minimum size limit to 12 inches (30.5 cm) FL would make the state and Federal regulations for gray triggerfish consistent off the east coast of Florida, and for all Federal waters throughout the Council's jurisdiction. NMFS expects this action to reduce regulatory discards, improve regulatory compliance among fishers, and increase consistency among regulations.
        20-Fish Snapper-Grouper Aggregate Bag Limit
        This proposed rule would modify the 20-fish snapper-grouper aggregate bag limit by specifying that no more than 10 fish can be of any one species within the 20-fish aggregate. Currently, 14 snapper-grouper species are included in the 20-fish aggregate bag limit for the recreational sector. Recreational fishers in the South Atlantic EEZ may retain 20 total fish per person per day for the following species: Whitebone porgy, jolthead porgy, knobbed porgy, saucereye porgy, scup, gray triggerfish, bar jack, almaco jack, banded rudderfish, lesser amberjack, white grunt, margate, sailor's choice, and Atlantic spadefish. These species do not have individual recreational bag limits. The Council determined that modifying the 20-fish aggregate bag limit in this way would allow recreational anglers to catch the same number of fish overall as within the current limit, while limiting the number of any one species within the 20-fish aggregate to 10 fish. Because of stakeholder concerns over the status of the South Atlantic gray triggerfish stock and large catches of Atlantic spadefish in recent years, the Council chose to be proactive and limit the harvest of these two species, as well as the remainder of the species in the 20-fish aggregate. In addition, the state of Florida currently limits harvest of gray triggerfish to 10 fish per person per day in state waters off its east coast. Therefore, this action to revise the snapper-grouper 20-fish aggregate bag limit would also simplify the regulatory environment by creating consistent regulations for recreational fishing for and retention of gray triggerfish in state and Federal waters off the east coast of Florida. In both cases (the size limits for gray triggerfish, and the bag limits applicable to gray triggerfish), the changes in this proposed rule would align the state and Federal regulations for gray triggerfish off the east coast of Florida.
        Measures in Regulatory Amendment 26 Not in This Proposed Rule
        During development of Regulatory Amendment 26, the Council considered three related actions that would establish a deep-water species aggregate, specify the recreational season for the deep-water species aggregate, and specify the aggregate bag limit for the deep-water species aggregate. Upon consideration, the Council decided not to make changes based on these three actions because of the regional and seasonal differences in access to some of the deep-water species in the South Atlantic and the potential disproportionate negative effects on some recreational fishers.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Regulatory Amendment 26, the Snapper-Grouper FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for purposes of the RFA that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.

        A description of the proposed rule and its purpose are contained at the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, this proposed rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        The proposed action would apply only to the recreational sector of the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. This proposed action would remove the recreational minimum size limits for queen snapper, silk snapper, and blackfin snapper; reduce the recreational minimum size limit for gray triggerfish in the EEZ off the east coast of Florida; and modify the snapper-grouper 20-fish aggregate bag limit.
        Recreational anglers fishing for snapper-grouper species would be directly affected by the proposed action, but anglers are not considered business entities under the RFA. For-hire vessels (charter vessels and headboats) would also be affected by this action, but only in an indirect way. For-hire businesses operate in the recreational sector, but these businesses only sell fishing services to recreational anglers. Even though expectations of successful fishing, however defined, likely factor into the decision by anglers to purchase these services, for-hire vessels provide a platform for the opportunity to fish and not a guarantee to catch or harvest any species. Because the effects on for-hire vessels would be indirect, they are outside the scope of the RFA. Therefore, the proposed actions in Regulatory Amendment 26 would not directly affect any small business entities in the snapper-grouper fishery.

        Primarily for informational purposes to the public in this proposed rule, the following description of small entities (i.e., for-hire vessels) indirectly affected by the proposed action is provided. Charter vessels and headboats (also called party boats) are the two types of vessels operating in the for-hire business industry. Although charter vessels tend to be smaller, on average, than headboats, the key distinction between the two types of operations is how the fee is typically determined. On a charter vessels trip, the fee charged is for the entire vessel, regardless of how many passengers are carried, whereas the fee charged for a headboat trip is paid per individual angler.
        A Federal charter vessel/headboat snapper-grouper permit (South Atlantic for-hire permit) is required for harvesting snapper-grouper species when fishing on for-hire vessels. The South Atlantic for-hire permit is an open access permit. As of June 2, 2019, there were 1,743 valid (non-expired) or renewable South Atlantic for-hire permits. A renewable permit is an expired permit that may not be actively fished, but is renewable for up to 1 year after expiration. Some vessel owners may have obtained open access permits as insurance for uncertainties in the fisheries in which they currently operate. From 2012 through 2016, the lowest number of for-hire vessel permits occurred in 2014 and the highest occurred in 2016. The majority of snapper-grouper for-hire permitted vessels were home-ported in Florida, and approximately 10 percent of the total number of for-hire snapper-grouper vessels are home-ported in states outside of the Council's area of jurisdiction. Although the for-hire permit application collects information on the primary method of operation, the resultant permit itself does not identify the permitted vessel as either a charter vessel or a headboat. This is because operation as either a charter vessel or headboat is not restricted by the permitting regulations, and vessels may operate in both capacities under the permit. However, according to the NMFS Southeast Region Headboat Survey, there were 63 headboats operating in the South Atlantic.
        Economic value for for-hire vessels can be measured by producer surplus (PS) per passenger trip (the amount of money that a vessel owner earns in excess of the cost of providing the trip). Estimates of the PS per for-hire passenger trip are not available. Instead, net operating revenue (NOR), which is the return used to pay all labor wages, returns to capital and owner profits, is used as a proxy for PS. For the South Atlantic region, estimated NOR values are $165 per charter angler trip and $45 per headboat angler trip. To calculate the economic effects on for-hire vessels, these NOR values would have to be multiplied by the changes in for-hire angler trips. Due to the absence of data regarding the complex nature of angler behavior, it is not possible to estimate the potential changes in angler trips. However, it is likely that for-hire trips would not be substantially reduced because of the presence of alternative species that anglers can target and catch. It is, therefore, likely that the NOR effects on for-hire vessels would be relatively small.
        Regulatory Amendment 26 also considered three related actions that would have established a deep-water species aggregate, specified the recreational season for the deep-water species aggregate, and specified the aggregate bag limit for the deep-water species aggregate. Because the Council chose the no action alternative for each of these actions, they would have no economic effects on directly or indirectly affected small entities.
        The information provided above supports a determination that this proposed rule would not directly affect any small entities in the snapper grouper fishery, and that it would not likely have a significant economic impact on even indirectly affected entities. Therefore, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this proposed rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Bag limits, Fisheries, Fishing, Grouper, Size limits, Snapper, South Atlantic.

          Dated: October 21, 2019.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.185, revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(2) to read as follows:

          § 622.185
           Size limits.

          (a) * * *
          (3) Cubera, gray, and yellowtail snappers—12 inches (30.5 cm), TL.

          (c) * * *
          (2) Gray triggerfish—12 inches (30.5 cm), FL.

        3. In § 622.187, revise paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:

          § 622.187
           Bag and possession limits.

          (8) South Atlantic snapper-grouper (whitebone porgy, jolthead porgy, knobbed porgy, saucereye porgy, scup, almaco jack, banded rudderfish, lesser amberjack, white grunt, margate, sailor's choice, Atlantic spadefish, gray triggerfish, bar jack), combined—20. However, excluded from this 20-fish bag limit are tomtate, South Atlantic snapper-grouper ecosystem component species (specified in Table 4 of Appendix A to part 622), and those specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) and paragraphs (b)(9) and (10) of this section. Within the 20-fish bag limit, no more than 10 fish can be of any one of these single snapper-grouper species.

      [FR Doc. 2019-23267 Filed 10-24-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 90
        [WC Docket No. 10-90; Report No. 2987]
        Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Elizabeth Bowles, President, on behalf of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 26, 2013. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before September 3, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ryan Yates, Wireline Competition Bureau (202) 418-7400 (phone) or (202) 418-0484 (TTY).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 2987, released July 30, 2013. The full text of document Report No. 2987 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

          Subject: Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, FCC 13-73, published at 78 FR 38227, June 26, 2013 and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also § 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.

          Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.

      [FR Doc. 2013-19234 Filed 8-8-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Transit Administration
        49 CFR Part 605
        [Docket No. FTA-99-5082]
        RIN 2132-AA67
        School Bus Operations; Amendment of Tripper Service Definition; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of rulemaking; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a document in the Federal Register of January 28, 2005, withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking relating to its School Bus Operations regulation. This document misidentified the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Elizabeth Martineau, 202-366-1936.
          Correction
          In the Federal Register of January 28, 2005, in FR Doc. 05-1644 on page 4081, in the heading section, correct the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) to read:
           RIN 2132-AA67

            Dated: January 28, 2005.
            Scott A. Biehl,
            Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation and Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 05-2022  Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-57-M


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178; FXES11130900000C2-156-FF009E32000]
        RIN 1018-AY84
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Downlist the West Indian Manatee, and Proposed Rule To Reclassify the West Indian Manatee as Threatened
        Correction
        In Proposed Rule document 2015-32645, appearing on pages 1000-1026, in the Issue of Friday, January 8, 2016, make the following correction:
        On page 1000, in the first column, under the heading “DATES:” the entry “April 8, 2015” is corrected to read “April 7, 2016”.

      [FR Doc. C1-2015-32645 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 15
        [ET Docket No. 20-36; FCC 20-156; FRS 17403]
        Unlicensed White Space Device Operations in the Television Bands

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the use of a terrain-based propagation model such as Longley-Rice for determining white space channel availability and seeks to develop a record on whether or not to implement such a model. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the effect use of such a model would have on availability of channels for white space devices, how a terrain-based model such as Longley-Rice could be implemented within the current white space device framework, the technical parameters necessary to use such a model for identifying available spectrum while protecting incumbents from harmful interference, and various database and device implementation issues.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before March 29, 2021; reply comments are due on or before April 26, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 20-36, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-7506, Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM), in ET Docket No. 20-36, FCC 20-156, adopted on October 27, 2020, and released on October 28, 2020. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and can be downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-increases-unlicensed-wireless-operations-tv-white-spaces-0 or by using the search function for ET Docket No. 20-36 on the Commission's ECFS web page at www.fcc.gov/ecfs.

        Synopsis
        1. Discussion. The Commission addresses Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), and Public Interest Spectrum Coalition arguments that the Commission should determine white space channel availability using a terrain-based model, such as the Longley-Rice Irregular Terrain Model (Longley-Rice model), which they assert will determine channel availability more accurately than the current contour-based model used by the Commission. For example, a terrain-based model could permit a white space device to deploy at a location where the television signal is shielded by a large hill or mountain, whereas the existing methodology does not account for such shielding. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and Sennheiser, however, oppose using the Longley-Rice model due to concerns about its accuracy in protecting TV receivers and because it may slow operation of the white space database.
        2. Current protection model. Under current rules, white space devices must generally operate outside the defined co-channel and adjacent channel television station protected contours. The rules provide a table of separation distances beyond the protected contour that white space devices must meet that is based on the white space device's equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) and height above average terrain (HAAT). These distances are based on a desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio of 23 dB at the edge of the protected contour for co-channel operation, and −33 dB at the edge of the protected contour for adjacent channel operation, with a 14 dB allowance for TV receive antenna front-to-back ratio. The distances were calculated using the F(50,10) curves for separation distances of greater than 15 kilometers, the F(50,50) curves for separation distances of 1.5 to 15 kilometers, and the TM-91-1 model for separation distances of less than 1.5 kilometers.
        3. Longley-Rice model. The Longley-Rice model is used to make predictions of radio signal field strength using the median attenuation calculated as a function of distance and the signal variability in time and space. The model can be run in point-to-point mode where it examines a specific radio signal path between a transmitter and a receiver, or in area mode in which it predicts field strength at many geographic points within a specified area. Each operational mode uses a terrain elevation profile in making predictions; in the point-to-point mode path-specific parameters can be determined from the terrain profile between the transmitter and receiver, and in area mode the elevation profile between the transmitter and each specific reception point is examined. The model may require a large number of reception points to be individually examined. It also requires a large set of input parameters encompassing system parameters (e.g., frequency, polarization, antenna heights), environmental parameters (e.g., terrain irregularity, electrical ground constants, surface refractivity, climate information), deployment parameters, and statistical parameters (e.g., reliability and confidence level). Based on the predicted radio signal attenuation and using additional factors such as transmitter power and antenna directivity, the D/U signal ratio can be estimated and compared against the 23 dB co-channel and −33 dB adjacent channel standards used as the basis when developing the white space device rules to predict whether harmful interference is likely to occur to television reception.

        4. The Longley-Rice model can be implemented using a variety of methodologies. For example, the area subject to calculation can be divided into rectangular cells, e.g., a 1-by-1 kilometer grid, and the field strength predictions are calculated at a point in each cell, such as the geographic center or the population centroid. The Commission notes that as computing power has increased over the years, it is most common to execute the model in point-to-point mode and use a batch process to evaluate each grid cell within a specified area. Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on various implementations for white space device evaluation which include both area and point to point mode as it is concerned about the available processing power, capabilities and time requirements to run many simultaneous batch processes to evaluate a large number of white space devices that may query the database for available channel information at the same time. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should specify a specific operational mode and how the model should be implemented under a specific mode or both operational modes.

        5. As a threshold matter, the Commission seeks comment on whether using a terrain-based model, and in particular the Longley-Rice model, would better serve the white space device community as well as television broadcasters and other protected entities in the television bands. Commenters should specify the pros and cons of their preferred approach as it relates either to the Commission's existing contour method or other terrain-based propagation models. The Commission seeks comment on how the Longley-Rice model could be used to determine available white space channels. Would it be used only to determine if a white space device at a specific geographic location and power level meets the co- and adjacent channel D/U ratios? Or should the propagation model be used for wider applicability such as for determining separation distances necessary to ensure other protected entities such as licensed wireless microphones, television translator receive sites, cable headends, and land mobile stations do not experience harmful interference? In such cases, what criteria should be used to determine the protection distances? Should D/U ratios be used here too, or some other metric such as an interference-to-noise ratio? Commenters should provide detailed technical reasoning regarding how the metric they support achieves the necessary protection levels. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the propagation model can be used to determine which areas are “less congested” and thus subject to more flexible rules. In this case, what criteria should be used as the basis for determining a “less congested” area as it relates to use of the propagation model? Could using the Longley-Rice propagation model for this purpose permit additional areas to be designated as “less congested” to provide more flexibility for white space devices? Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the propagation model can be applied not only to fixed white space devices, but also to personal/portable, mobile and narrowband IoT white space devices. In each context, are there specific provisions required for how the model is implemented to account for the different white space device operational modes and use cases?
        6. What mode—point-to-point or area—is appropriate for each situation? For fixed white space devices, it would seem intuitive to use the point-to-point mode to examine a specific radio path to the television station contour. However, the Commission seeks comment on what specific path should be examined—the shortest path to the contour or possibly a different path where the white space device and television contour are further apart, but due to terrain shielding effects, may have less attenuation. How would each path be determined and how many specific paths would need to be evaluated before a determination can be made as to whether a channel is available for white space device use? Or would it be better to run the propagation model in area mode to determine the points along the television contour with the highest co- and adjacent channel D/U ratios and then run the model again in point-to-point mode for those specific transmission paths? Should a D/U threshold be set to determine which paths need further examination? If so, how close to the 23 dB co-channel and −33 dB adjacent channel thresholds do they need to be? And if an initial area mode calculation must be performed, what grid size is appropriate and what point within each grid cell should be used for analysis purposes? Using similar logic, how could the model be applied to determine “less congested” areas and operating locations for personal/portable, mobile or narrowband white space devices? Should it be run only in area mode or must additional point-to-point calculations also be performed? Commenters should provide detail regarding how the model can be applied to each of the situations likely to be encountered for various white space device types.
        7. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Longley-Rice model would always determine the same or shorter separation distances from a TV contour than the current model, or whether there are cases where it could require greater separation distances, and therefore reduce white space device channel availability. How justified are the concerns expressed by the NAB regarding the use of the Longley-Rice model to protect television reception? NAB argues that the Longley-Rice model requires transmitter and receiver locations to be known with precision, while television receiver locations are not reflected in any database and cannot be passively detected, and that current television receiver protection requirements for white space devices are not overly conservative or based on worst-case assumptions. The Commission seeks comment on NAB's assertions. Commenters that favor use of the Longley-Rice model should provide specific reasons regarding how NAB's concerns can be addressed.
        8. The Commission further seeks comment on whether the Longley-Rice model should be the exclusive means of determining white space channel availability, or whether it should be an optional alternative to the current protection model. As an alternative model, would it be more appropriate to use the Longley-Rice model in combination with other propagation models in some circumstances such as the Commission requires for 6 GHz unlicensed devices, where different propagation models are specified at different distances? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Longley-Rice model can or should be used for modeling the TV coverage itself, and therefore possibly allowing white space device operation within a TV protected contour as calculated using the F(50,90) curves so long as the minimum D/U ratios are met.
        9. The Commission also seeks comment on the technical requirements that need to be specified if the Commission permits the use of the Longley-Rice model. What inputs are necessary for using the model in either point-to-point mode or area mode for each white space device type, potential use situation as well as for determining “less congested” areas and protection distances for each type of protected entity? Which of these inputs should be specified by rule and which can be determined either by the white space device operator or the database? Commenters should be as specific as possible regarding their preference for input parameters and provide engineering justification for those preferences. What grid size and which location within each grid cell should be used for determining white space channel availability?

        10. The Commission further seeks comment on the terrain database that should be used with the Longley-Rice model or any alternative terrain-based model that the Commission specifies. Should the Commission require the use of a particular terrain database, such as one based on 3-arc second data or 1-arc second data? Should the Commission instead simply specify some minimum criteria for a terrain database, e.g., granularity, and allow the use of any terrain database that meets or exceeds that criteria?
        11. Model Implementation. The Commission seeks comment on the various implementation factors that must be considered if the Commission adopts rules to allow the use of the Longley-Rice model or another terrain-based propagation model. As an initial matter, the white space database administrator would need time to implement this change to its system. How long should the Commission provide for the database administrator to implement these necessary changes? What type of testing should be performed to ensure that a white space database using a terrain-based model provides accurate results? Should the Commission perform its own testing or should it require public testing as it did when initially designating white space database administrators? The Commission also seeks comment on any effect that these changes might have on database and network performance. If the amount of overhead data necessary to use the Longley-Rice model significantly increases over what is necessary under the existing rules, would the result be slower response times as Sennheiser suggests? If so, would this detrimentally affect the utility of white space devices? Would such changes affect the capacity of the database to handle large numbers of white space devices simultaneously?
        12. Are changes needed to white space devices if the database is modified to base channel availability on the Longley-Rice model? Does the information sent from white space devices to the database need to change from the data set currently sent? If so, could all existing devices be updated? If not, how should the database deal with devices that can send the necessary data and those that cannot? Should the Commission require that devices be updated within a specific time period? What should that time period be? Would any of the needed changes to a white space device affect its emissions and necessitate a change to its equipment authorization records?

        13. How would the database using the Longley-Rice model account for any device location uncertainty? What actions should be taken if the propagation model determines that an existing operational white space device on a specific channel based on current protection distances no longer meets the D/U ratios after performing the required calculations? Should that device no longer be permitted to operate on that channel at its current power level or could the existing separation distances specified in the rules be considered a safe harbor for operations?

        14. The operational changes and effects of implementing the Longley-Rice model for determining white space device channel availability range from technical and modelling considerations to specific model implementation factors to database and device matters. The Commission asks that commenters comprehensively examine all aspects of the rule changes that would be needed and the effect they would have if it were to modify the white space device rules to specify use of the Longley-Rice model rather than the current contour-based method of protecting television stations and other protected entities in the TV bands.
        Procedural Matters
        15. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, the Commission note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), it previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
        16. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this FNPRM. The Full IRFA is found in Appendix D at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-increases-unlicensed-wireless-operations-tv-white-spaces-0. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the FNPRM, and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
        17. The Commission requests written public comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to the FNPRM and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
        18. Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        19. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
        Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

        • Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.

        20. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        Ordering Clauses
        21. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 201, 302, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 302a, 303, that this further notice of proposed rulemaking is hereby adopted.
        22. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2021-03437 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P