        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 151201999-6115-01]
        RIN 0648-BF51
        Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The National Marine Fisheries Service proposes a rule to implement the requirement under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that all fishery management plans (FMPs) establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in a fishery. The proposed rule provides guidance to regional fishery management councils and the Secretary of Commerce regarding the development, documentation, and review of such methodologies, commonly referred to as Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodologies (SBRMs).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by April 25, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0002, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0002 click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Karen Abrams, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, SSMC3-OSF-SF3, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous), and will accept attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karen Abrams 301-427-8508.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 303(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)) describes 15 required provisions of any fishery management plan (FMP) prepared by a regional fishery management council or the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any fishery (hereafter “Council” includes the regional fishery management councils and the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate (see 16 U.S.C. 1854(c) and (g)). This proposed rule focuses on section 303(a)(11), which requires that all FMPs establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. The section 303(a)(11) standardized reporting methodology is commonly referred to as a “Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology” (SBRM), and this proposed rule defines, interprets, and provides guidance on the basic requirements for the SBRM.
        Section 303(a)(11) was added to the MSA by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (SFA). All FMPs have been amended to reflect the SBRM requirement. The SFA also added a definition for “bycatch” (section 3(2), 16 U.S.C. 1802(2)) and National Standard 9 (section 301(a)(9), 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9)). The MSA defines “bycatch” as fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and as including economic discards and regulatory discards. The definition of bycatch does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery management program. The MSA does not define “standardized reporting methodology” or any of the words contained within the phrase. Similar to section 303(a)(11), National Standard 9 (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9)) requires that conservation and management measures “shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.” However, National Standard 9 does not address SBRM. NMFS has never issued regulations that set forth the agency's interpretation of the SBRM provision.

        To implement the 1996 SFA Amendments, NMFS developed advisory guidelines for National Standard 9 (guidelines) in 1998, and further amended the guidelines in 2008. The guidelines provide several clarifications about bycatch requirements under the MSA, but do not directly address SBRM. For example, the guidelines explain that “bycatch” includes the discard of whole fish at sea but does not include legally-retained fish kept for personal, tribal or cultural use (50 CFR 600.350(c)). In addition, to facilitate the evaluation of conservation and management measures consistent with National Standard 9, the guidelines call for the development of a database on bycatch and bycatch mortality in the fishery to the extent practicable. The guidelines note that, to comply with National Standard 9 and MSA sections 303(a)(11) (SBRM) and (12) (catch and release), a review and, where necessary, improvement of data collection methods, data sources and applications must be initiated for each fishery to assess bycatch and bycatch mortality. See 50 CFR 600.350(d)(1).
        In 2004, NMFS published Evaluating Bycatch: A National Approach to Standardized Bycatch Monitoring Programs (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-66, October 2004, hereafter referred to as Evaluating Bycatch), a report that was prepared by the agency's National Working Group on Bycatch (available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/SPO_final_rev_12204.pdf). The report discusses regional bycatch and fisheries issues, the advantages and disadvantages of different reporting/monitoring measures, and precision goals for bycatch estimates. See Evaluating Bycatch at Chapters 3, 4, and 5. However, Evaluating Bycatch addresses more than bycatch as defined under the MSA; it also addresses interactions with species protected under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. The report also acknowledges that its goals “may in some instances exceed minimum statutory requirements.” See Evaluating Bycatch at Appendix 5. In summary, the report does not provide the agency's interpretation of the basic requirements of complying with MSA section 303(a)(11).
        Purpose and Scope

        This proposed rule, which is promulgated pursuant to MSA section 305(d) (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)), is intended to establish national requirements and guidance for establishing and reviewing SBRMs under section 303(a)(11) of the MSA. This rule solely addresses reporting methodology requirements pertaining to “bycatch” as defined under the MSA. (See the Background subheading for a definition.) The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act create additional, important bycatch-related responsibilities for NOAA Fisheries, but discussion of such responsibilities is beyond the scope of this proposed rule. As explained below, there are several reasons why NMFS is undertaking this rulemaking.

        NMFS has never issued regulations that set forth the basic requirements of the SBRM provision of section 303(a)(11). Although the National Standard 9 guidelines and Evaluating Bycatch discuss the SBRM provision, neither provides an interpretation of, or purports to set forth the basic requirements for complying with, the provision. In the absence of a national SBRM regulation, some Councils appear to have adopted the recommendations in Evaluating Bycatch as though they set forth mandatory requirements for a bycatch reporting methodology. Others have not followed the recommendations in Evaluating Bycatch, or have adopted only some of them. NMFS believes that the apparent confusion regarding the applicability of the recommendations in Evaluating Bycatch necessitates clear guidance regarding what the SBRM provision requires, what is needed for fishery conservation and management, and what is feasible to implement.
        In addition, since the 1996 SFA amendments, there have been legal challenges to the SBRMs established in some FMPs. Court decisions have focused largely on the specific allegations and records before the courts, and have addressed only certain aspects of the SBRM provision and the agency's implementation of that provision. Therefore, NMFS believes that a comprehensive analysis of the MSA requirements in section 303(a)(11) through a rulemaking action is necessary in order to prevent inconsistent implementation of the provision, on a region-by-region basis in response to fact-specific litigation.
        Finally, public concern about bycatch and public expectations for accessing bycatch information and estimates continues to grow, while concerns from the regulated community about the costs for fishery monitoring and reporting requirements also continues to increase. NMFS intends to address some of these concerns in this action.
        Overview of the Proposed Rule
        As described in detail below, this proposed rule explains the purpose of a standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM), and clarifies the activities associated with the phrase “standardized reporting methodology” and the meaning of the term “standardized.” This action would require that a standardized reporting methodology be appropriate for a particular fishery, and would provide required and discretionary factors for the Councils to consider when establishing or reviewing a methodology. Recognizing that there may be a future need to adjust how an SBRM is implemented, NMFS also proposes requirements for an adjustment process, if a Council is interested in exploring such a process. Finally, this proposed rule would provide for periodic review of existing SBRMs.
        Purpose of an SBRM

        Proposed section 600.1600 states that the purpose of a standardized reporting methodology is to inform the assessment of the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery for use in developing conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. See 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11). The text refers to “inform[ing]” assessment of bycatch, as the data resulting from an SBRM are used along with other information for bycatch assessment and estimation purposes. (See Activities Associated with an SBRM, below, for further explanation.) Proposed section 600.1610(a)(2)(i) requires that the data resulting from the methodology be useful, in conjunction with other relevant sources of data, in meeting the purpose of the methodology as described in section 600.1600 and fishery-specific bycatch objectives. (See Considerations for Establishing or Reviewing an SBRM, below, for an explanation of other required and discretionary factors.)
        Activities Associated With an SBRM

        An SBRM could include one or a combination of data collection and reporting programs, such as observer programs, electronic monitoring and reporting technologies, and self-reported mechanisms (e.g., recreational sampling, and industry-reported catch and discards). Proposed section 600.1605(a) defines “standardized reporting methodology” with reference to the collection, recording, and reporting of bycatch data in a fishery, which is connected to, but distinct from the methods used to assess bycatch and the development of measures to minimize bycatch or bycatch mortality. NMFS believes that it is important to distinguish between methods to collect and report bycatch data in a fishery with actions to assess and minimize bycatch. This distinction will help clarify the key policy choices and objectives associated with establishing a reporting methodology, so as not to confuse those choices with statistical and technical approaches for estimating bycatch that are inherently scientific and data dependent or the policy choices associated with developing measures to minimize bycatch.

        The distinction between data collecting, reporting, etc., and developing management measures is reflected in part in the fact that section 303(a)(11) requires the establishment of SBRMs, and separately, section 303(a)(11) and National Standard 9 requires that FMPs include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. As a practical matter, there are multiple steps leading to the development of conservation and management measures that address bycatch. First, bycatch data are collected, recorded, and reported pursuant to an SBRM. The 2011 U.S. National Bycatch Report (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-117E) describes how data from SBRMs are used in combination with other information, such as fishing effort, fishery independent data, and other data (pages 90, 155, 219, 319, 350, and 373), to develop total estimates of bycatch by fishery. Second, bycatch data from an SBRM, as well as other information about the fishery, are used to assess (e.g. evaluate or estimate) the amount and type of bycatch in a fishery. A variety of different models can be used to estimate bycatch. The models and combination of data used to estimate bycatch vary from region to region and across fisheries, depending on a variety of factors, including the characteristics of the fishery and the data available to manage the fishery. The resulting estimates are often provided in Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports. Finally, bycatch data and estimates are used to inform a Council in the development of conservation and management measures to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. (This information may also be used by Councils for other purposes, such as for in-season or post-season management of a fishery, and for stock assessments.)

        One source of confusion in Evaluating Bycatch is that the report conflates the collection and reporting of bycatch data with the assessment of such data when the report states that “the combination of data collection and analyses that is used to estimate bycatch in a fishery constitutes the SBRM for the fishery” (Appendix 5). NMFS does not believe that the estimation methods must be included in an FMP as part of the standardized reporting methodology. However, neither this rule nor the statute precludes discussion of those estimation methods in an FMP.

        While defining “standardized reporting methodology” as something different than bycatch assessment and management measures, NMFS recognizes the interconnectedness of these steps. This proposed rule addresses the interrelation between these steps by explaining the purpose of SBRM (proposed section 600.1600) and requiring that data resulting from the methodology be useful, in conjunction with other relevant sources of data, in meeting the purpose of the SBRM and fishery-specific bycatch objectives (proposed section 600.1610((a)(2)(i)). (See Purpose of an SBRM, above.)
        Meaning of “Standardized”
        The proposed rule also clarifies that “standardized” does not mean that reporting methodologies must be standardized at a regional or national level. Proposed section 600.1605(a) explains that a standardized reporting methodology may vary from one fishery to another (including among fisheries managed in the same FMP). However, the methodology must provide a consistent approach for collecting, recording, and reporting bycatch data within a fishery. For example, a reporting methodology that relies on self-reported logbook data may be appropriate for one fishery, while at-sea observer coverage may be more appropriate for other fisheries. As long as the reporting methodology for a fishery provides for a consistent approach for collecting, recording, and reporting bycatch data for all the participants in that fishery, then the methodology would be considered “standardized” under the proposed rule's definition.
        Considerations for Establishing or Reviewing an SBRM
        This proposed rule acknowledges that whether a methodology is appropriate for a fishery will depend on the specific circumstances of the fishery. This proposed rule frames policy choices associated with establishing an SBRM by providing “required factors” for establishing or reviewing an SBRM (proposed section 600.1610(a)(2)(i)), and by recommending additional factors that may be considered by the Councils (proposed section 600.1610(a)(2)(ii)).
        Proposed section 600.1610(a)(2)(i) states that data resulting from the methodology must be useful, in conjunction with other relevant sources of data, in meeting the purpose of the methodology as described in section 600.1600 and fishery-specific bycatch objectives. This requies a Council, when establishing or reviewing a methodology, to consider the conservation and management objectives of the fishery with respect to bycatch, the data quality associated with the methodology, and information about the characteristics of bycatch in the fishery, when available (such as the amount of bycatch occurring in the fishery, the importance or bycatch in estimating the total mortality of fish stocks, and the importance of bycatch to related ecosystems). Because data resulting from an SBRM will be used, along with other relevant information, to inform the assessment of the amount and type of bycatch occurring in a fishery, a Council should consult with its scientific and statistical committee, advisory panels, and the NOAA science centers, as appropriate, on data elements, reporting frequency, and other design and methodology factors (proposed section 600.1610(b)). Another required consideration when establishing or reviewing a methodology is its feasibility, from cost, technical, and operational perspectives. In addition, the proposed rule requires that each SBRM be designed to be implemented within available funding.
        The proposed rule also recognizes that other factors may be relevant to establishing an SBRM. Therefore, proposed section 600.1610(a)(2)(ii) provides that Councils may also consider the overall magnitude and/or economic impact of the fishery, and the scientific methods and techniques available to collect and report bycatch data that could improve the quality of the bycatch estimates.

        NMFS recognizes that a court decision held that operational constraints (such as funding) are not an excuse for failing to “establish” an SBRM. (See Oceana v. Locke, 670 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2011).) However, NMFS does not believe that this court decision stands for the proposition that costs cannot be taken into consideration at all when developing or revising an SBRM. The case did not discuss National Standard 7, which explicitly requires that conservation and management measures (which would include data collection, recording, and reporting requirements employed under an SBRM) “where practicable, minimize costs and unnecessary duplication” (section 301(a)(7), 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(7)). If the Council proposes an FMP or FMP amendment with an SBRM that is not designed to be implemented within available funding or that is not feasible, NMFS may need to disapprove or partially disapprove that FMP amendment. Therefore, this proposed rule provides that Councils must consider feasibility when establishing or reviewing an SBRM.

        Proposed section 600.1610(a)(2)(i) requires that data resulting from the methodology be useful, in conjunction with other relevant sources of data, in meeting the purpose of the methodology as described in section 600.1600 and fishery-specific bycatch objectives. However, proposed section 600.1610(a)(2)(i) does not include specific standards regarding the precision or accuracy of bycatch estimates, as NMFS does not believe that section 303(a)(11) requires that an SBRM produce data that will generate estimates to a particular standard of statistical accuracy or precision. (See also 50 CFR 600.350(d)(2), recognizing under National Standard 9 Guidelines that “[d]ue to limitations on the information available, fishery managers may not be able to generate precise estimates of bycatch and bycatch mortality or other effects” for measures under consideration.) As explained above, other sources of data—beyond data from an SBRM—are used in bycatch assessments. In addition, different fisheries have different bycatch issues and concerns. This proposed rule recognizes the diversity of fisheries across the country and provides for a fishery-specific evaluation of the factors outlined in proposed section 600.1610(a)(2), while still ensuring that SBRMs will produce data that will be useful in meeting the statutory purpose of SBRMs. Based on its evaluation of the factors, a Council may determine that different levels of uncertainty are acceptable for different fisheries. For example, although an increase in observer coverage levels in a fishery would reduce uncertainty of bycatch estimates, such an increase may not be feasible from a cost or safety standpoint, may not be necessary to assess bycatch in the fishery, or may not be useful in developing conservation and management measures for bycatch in that fishery. The proposed rule would allow a Council to evaluate whether an incremental improvement in data quality is justified in light of the purpose of SBRM and other factors outlined in sections 600.1610(a)(2)(i) and (ii).

        Some courts have addressed bycatch estimates or the quality of data in the context of particular FMPs or amendments. (See, e.g., NRDC v. Evans, 168 F.Supp.2d 1149, 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2001), asserting that NMFS failed to address the SBRM requirement and its “duty to obtain accurate bycatch data”; and Oceana v. Evans, 384 F.Supp.2d 203, 234-235 (D.D.C. 2005), finding that NMFS failed to analyze what type of program would “succeed in producing the statistically reliable estimates of bycatch needed to better manage the fishery” and to address an accuracy concern in a scientific study.) However, these opinions were based on the specific records before the courts, and did not engage in comprehensive statutory construction of the SBRM provision. NMFS believes that the approach of this proposed rule is consistent with MSA section 303(a)(11) and will ensure that SBRMs are developed consistent with the statutory purpose for SBRMs (proposed section 600.1600), while allowing Councils to address the unique circumstances of particular fisheries.
        NMFS clarifies that the Evaluating Bycatch report should not be treated as the agency's interpretation of the SRBM provision; that is the purpose of this proposed rule. A Council may continue to use the Evaluating Bycatch report, as explained below. NMFS notes that the Evaluating Bycatch report discusses accuracy and precision in the context of bycatch estimates from observer data. (See Evaluating Bycatch at 35-39.) The report describes the accuracy of an estimate as “the difference between the mean of the sample and the true population value,” and the precision of an estimate as “essentially how repeatable an observation would be if a number of independent trials were to be conducted.” (Id. at 38.) To address these issues, the Evaluating Bycatch report provided “precision goals” expressed as “coefficient of variation” (CV), which is the ratio of the square root of the variance of the bycatch estimate (i.e. the standard error) to the estimate itself. The lower the CV, the more precise (and less uncertain) is the bycatch estimate. (Id. at 35.) The report makes clear that there are a variety of situations in which precision goals for bycatch estimates may not be useful to consider when designing bycatch data collection and reporting methods, and in which achieving such goals may not be feasible. The report lists numerous caveats for using precision goals in the context of bycatch reporting/monitoring programs. (Id. at Executive Summary, 58.)

        While observer programs may be included as part of an SBRM, the MSA does not require their inclusion in every SBRM. (See 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11), (b)(8).) Moreover, under this proposed rule, bycatch estimation is not included in the definition of standardized reporting methodology. If a Council finds that it would be helpful to consider CV goals for bycatch estimates when it designs an SBRM, this proposed rule would not preclude that. A Council may continue to use the Evaluating Bycatch report for information on CV goals, considerations for observer programs, etc., as appropriate, although NMFS advises Councils to take into consideration that Evaluating Bycatch is over a decade old, and that technologies and science have evolved considerably since its publication in 2004.
        Documenting the Establishment of an SBRM
        To document that an SBRM is “established,” proposed section 1600.1610(a)(1) requires that every FMP contain a description of the required bycatch data collection, recording, and reporting procedures that constitute the SBRM for each fishery managed under it. The description must also provide a statement explaining why the methodology is appropriate for the fishery as guided by mandatory and discretionary factors described in proposed section 1600.1610(a)(2). The explanation required by proposed section 1600.1610(a)(1) must be based on a thorough analysis of all the factors evaluated in establishing a standardized reporting methodology. The explanation must be contained in the FMP, but it may incorporate by reference analyses in FMPs, FMP amendments, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports or other documents. The description and explanation of the SBRM will clarify for the public and interested stakeholders the policy choices that the Council considered in establishing the SBRM.
        Adaptable Implementation of an SBRM

        With this proposed rule, NMFS also seeks to ensure that the Councils have sufficient flexibility to adjust implementation of an established SBRM in a way that is clear to the public, but that does not necessarily require an FMP amendment. This proposed rule provides that, if a Council anticipates that adjustments will be necessary to implement the methodology, the Council may, consistent with the requirements of the MSA and other applicable law, consider adopting a process in an FMP to adjust implementation of the methodology. A Council may consider adopting such a process based on factors, which include, but are not limited to, available funding, management contingencies, or scientific priorities. If such a process is adopted, the FMP must describe the process by which the Councils or NMFS plan to implement the desired adjustments to an SBRM. (See proposed section 600.1610(c)). Such adjustments may include fine tuning the intensity, focus, or frequency of the required data collection procedures specified in the FMP. Such a process could reflect existing annual or multi-year processes already in use by a Council, such as framework adjustments or annual specifications. The process must clearly describe considerations that will drive those adjustments. The need for such a process may be particularly relevant to SBRMs that are heavily dependent on the use of observers to collect bycatch data. NMFS also believes that there may be instances in which changes to the underlying conservation and management objectives for the fishery, funding, available technology, or other factors may trigger a complete review and possible revision of the SBRM. It is important that the public understands, upfront, the limits of applying such adjustments under an established SBRM and how the Council will determine that a reevaluation of the established methodology is warranted. With this proposed rule, NMFS seeks to clarify how an SBRM can be “established” and “standardized” while still providing necessary flexibility to implement the SBRM.
        Review of SBRMs
        Proposed section 600.1610(d) provides that all FMPs must be consistent with this rule within 5 years of finalizing the rule. To verify consistency with this rule, Councils should conduct a review of their existing SBRMs. The review should provide information to determine whether or not an FMP needs to be amended. The analysis and conclusions from the review should be documented but do not need to be contained in an FMP.

        There are several potential outcomes of the review. A review could find that there are FMPs with existing SBRMs that are consistent with this rule, in which case no FMP amendments are necessary. Other FMPs may define SBRMs more expansively than the definition in this proposed rule. For example, they may contain components that are consistent with this proposed rule, along with additional components that are not precluded by this rule, but are not minimally required. Those FMPs may not require further amendments. Still other FMPs may describe procedures or activities that comprise an SBRM but do not explain them in a manner consistent with this rule. In such cases, an FMP amendment may be warranted.
        After the initial review, Councils should periodically review standardized reporting methodologies to verify continued compliance with the MSA and this rule. Such a review should be conducted at least once every 5 years. Proposed section 600.1610(d) is consistent with the review and improvement of data collection methods, data sources, and applications described under the National Standard 9 guidelines at 50 CFR 600.350(d)(1).
        National Environmental Policy Act
        NMFS has made a preliminary determination to apply a Categorical Exclusion to this action under the National Environmental Policy Act due to the procedural nature of this action. If and when the provisions of this proposed rule are applied to specific FMPs, the Councils and/or the Secretary would prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA), as appropriate. NMFS solicits comments on this preliminary determination to use a categorical exclusion.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 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.
        The purpose of the action is to articulate an interpretation of the basic requirements of the SBRM provision of section 303(a)(11) of the MSA through a rulemaking to promote transparency and consistency. Key components of the proposed rule include:
        (1) A definition of “standardized reporting methodology” as applicable only to the definition of “bycatch” in the MSA and pertaining only to data collection, reporting and recording activities (not bycatch assessment and estimation);
        (2) clarified procedures for establishing, documenting, and reviewing SBRMs under the MSA; and
        (3) an option for adaptable implementation to allow for operational flexibility.
        The proposed rule defines a standardized reporting methodology as an established procedure or procedures used to collect, record, and report bycatch data in a fishery or subset of a fishery. It would clarify that the purpose of the methodology is to provide data that will inform the assessment of the amount and type of bycatch occurring in a fishery for use in developing conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. However, the phrase “standardized reporting methodology” in section 303(a)(11) refers only to bycatch data collection, recording, and reporting procedures.
        The action proposes a set of factors to help frame policy choices in establishing or reviewing an SBRM. Data resulting from the methodology must be useful, in conjunction with other relevant sources of data, in meeting the purpose of the SBRM and fishery-specific bycatch objectives. This would require Councils to consider conservation and management objectives related to bycatch for a fishery, the quality of the data associated with the methodology, and information about the characteristics of bycatch in the fishery, when available (such as the amount of bycatch occurring in the fishery, the importance of bycatch in estimating the total mortality of fish stocks, and the importance of bycatch to related ecosystems). The proposed rule also would require that an SBRM be feasible and designed to be implemented with available funding, and addresses the need for an SBRM to be adaptable in response to changes in funding levels or other circumstances. Finally, the proposed rule provides that existing SBRMs should be reviewed at least once every five years. The proposed rule does not require that an SBRM be designed to achieve a particular performance standard or precision goal.
        Small entities include “small businesses,” “small organizations,” and “small governmental jurisdictions.” The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the United States, including commercial finfish harvesters (NAICS code 114111), commercial shellfish harvesters (NAICS code 114112), other commercial marine harvesters (NAICS code 114119), for-hire businesses (NAICS code 487210), marinas (NAICS code 713930), seafood dealers/wholesalers (NAICS code 424460), and seafood processors (NAICS code 311710). A business primarily involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For commercial shellfish harvesters, the other qualifiers apply, and the receipts threshold is $5.5 million. For other commercial marine harvesters, for-hire businesses, and marinas, the other qualifiers apply, and the receipts threshold is $7.5 million. A business primarily involved in seafood processing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual employment not in excess of 500 employees for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For seafood dealers/wholesalers, the other qualifiers apply, and the employment threshold is 100 employees. A small organization is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Small governmental jurisdictions are governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with populations of less than 50,000.
        All FMPs have established SBRMs according to the requirements in 303(a)(11). This proposed rule would provide national guidance and improved clarity about implementing the existing requirements. The proposed rule would provide the Councils and the Secretary a five-year period within which to review FMPs to make any necessary amendments.
        Because the proposed rule would clarify existing requirements for FMPs and is procedural in nature, it would not directly regulate a particular fishery and will not directly alter the behavior of any entities operating in federally managed fisheries. Thus, no direct economic effects on commercial harvesting businesses, for-hire businesses, marinas, seafood dealers/wholesalers, or seafood processors are expected to result from this action. Therefore, no small entities would be directly affected by this rule.

        As a result of the information above, a reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected. Because this action, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant adverse economic effect on the profits of a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This rule would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600
          Administrative practice and procedure, Bycatch, Fisheries, Standardized Reporting Methodology.

          Dated: February 19, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 600 as follows:

          PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 600 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. Add a subpart R to read as follows:

          SUBPART R—STANDARDIZED BYCATCH REPORTING METHODOLOGY

          Sec.
          600.1600
          Purpose and scope.
          600.1605
          Definitions and word usage.
          600.1610
          Establishing and reviewing standardized bycatch reporting methodologies in fishery management plans.

          § 600.1600
          Purpose and scope.
          Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires any fishery management plan to establish a standardized bycatch reporting methodology. 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11). The purpose of a standardized reporting methodology is to inform the assessment of the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery for use in developing conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. This subpart sets forth requirements for and guidance on establishing and reviewing a standardized reporting methodology.

          § 600.1605
          Definitions and word usage.
          (a) Definitions. In addition to the definitions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and § 600.10, standardized reporting methodology means an established procedure or procedures used to collect, record, and report bycatch data in a fishery or subset of a fishery (hereafter referred to as “fishery”). “Standardized” procedures may vary from one fishery to another, but must provide a consistent approach for collecting, recording, and reporting bycatch data within a fishery.
          (b) Word usage. The terms “must”, “should”, “may”, “will”, “could”, and “can” are used in the same manner as in § 600.305(c). The term “Council” is used in the same manner as in § 600.305(c), and includes the regional fishery management Councils and the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate (16 U.S.C. 1854(c)and (g)).

          § 600.1610
          Establishing and reviewing standardized bycatch reporting methodologies in fishery management plans.
          (a) Establishing a standardized reporting methodology—(1) Fishery management plan contents. All fishery management plans (FMPs) must clearly describe a standardized reporting methodology for each fishery managed under it. The description must state the required bycatch data collection, recording, and reporting procedures for each fishery, which may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: Observer programs, electronic monitoring and reporting technologies, and self-reported mechanisms (e.g., recreational sampling, industry-reported catch and discard data). In addition, the description must provide an explanation of why the methodology is appropriate for the fishery. The explanation must be based on a thorough analysis of the factors specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. The explanation may incorporate by reference analyses in FMPs, FMP amendments, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports, or other documents.
          (2) Factors in establishing or reviewing a standardized reporting methodology. Whether a methodology is appropriate will depend on the specific circumstances of the fishery, as guided by the following factors:
          (i) Required factors. Data resulting from the methodology must be useful, in conjunction with other relevant sources of data, in meeting the purpose described in § 600.1600 and fishery-specific bycatch objectives. This requires Councils, when establishing or reviewing a methodology, to consider the conservation and management objectives regarding bycatch in the fishery and the quality of the data associated with the methodology. Councils must also consider information about the characteristics of bycatch in the fishery, when available, such as the amount of bycatch occurring in the fishery, the importance of bycatch in estimating the total mortality of fish stocks, and the importance of bycatch to related ecosystems. In addition, the methodology must be feasible from cost, technical, and operational perspectives, and must be designed to be implemented with available funding.
          (ii) Additional factors. When establishing or reviewing a standardized reporting methodology, a Council may also consider the overall magnitude and/or economic impact of the fishery, and the scientific methods and techniques available to collect and report bycatch data that could improve the quality of the bycatch estimates.
          (b) Consultation. A Council should consult with its scientific and statistical committee, advisory panels, and the NOAA science centers as appropriate on data elements, reporting frequency, and other design and methodology factors.
          (c) Adaptable implementation. If a Council anticipates that adjustments will be necessary to implement the methodology, the Council may, consistent with the requirements of the MSA and other applicable law, consider adopting a process in an FMP to adjust implementation of the methodology. The Council may consider adopting such a process based on factors, which include, but are not limited to, available funding, management contingencies, or scientific priorities. If such a process is adopted, the FMP must:
          (1) Describe the process under which the implementation of a methodology will be adjusted;
          (2) Specify what adjustments (e.g., changes in the intensity, focus, or frequency of required bycatch data collection, recording, and reporting procedures) are authorized under the process;
          (3) Explain why the adjustments may be needed;
          (4) Describe how and when the adjustments will be made;
          (5) Describe the limits to the adjustments; and
          (6) Describe how the Council will determine that a reevaluation of the established methodology is warranted.
          (d) Review of FMPs. All FMPs must be consistent with this rule within 5 years of the effective date of this rule. Thereafter, Councils should conduct a review of standardized reporting methodologies at least once every five years in order to verify continued compliance with the MSA and this rule.

      [FR Doc. 2016-04030 Filed 2-24-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Part 10
        [Docket No. DOT-OST-2016-0028]
        RIN 2105-AE76
        Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The Department of Transportation is correcting a notice published on February 6, 2019 issue of the Federal Register entitled “Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals”. This correction amends the Docket Number of the notice from DOT-OST-2017-0028 to read DOT-OST-2016-0028.

          DATES:
          Effective February 6, 2019.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Claire Barrett, Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 or privacy@dot.gov or (202) 366-8135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Correction
        In FR Doc. Federal Register at 84-2137 appearing on pages 2137-2138 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, February 6, 2019, the following corrections are made:
        On page 2137, in the first column in the Title section, “Docket No. DOT-OST-2017-0028 is corrected to read, “Docket No. DOT-OST-2016-0028.
        On page 2137, in the first column in the ADDRESSES section, “You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2017-0028 . . .” is corrected to read, “You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2016-0028 . . .”
        On page 2137, in the second column in the “Instructions” section, “You must include the agency name and docket number DOT-OST-2017-0028 . . .” is corrected to read, “You must include the agency name and docket number DOT-OST-2016-0028 . . .”

          Dated: February 15, 2019.
          Claire W. Barrett,
          Chief Privacy Officer.

      [FR Doc. 2019-02956 Filed 2-20-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 21
        RIN 1018-AT63
        Migratory Bird Permits; Determination That the State of Connecticut Meets Federal Falconry Standards

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We propose to add the State of Connecticut to the list of States whose falconry laws meet or exceed Federal falconry standards. We have reviewed the Connecticut falconry regulations and have determined that they are in compliance with the regulations governing falconry. This action will enable citizens to apply for Federal and State falconry permits and to practice falconry in Connecticut.

          DATES:
          We must receive comments on this proposed rule no later than January 19, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1018-AT63, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Agency Web Site: http://migratorybirds.fws.gov. Follow the links to submit a comment.
          • E-mail: connfalconryregs@fws.gov.

          • Fax: 703-358-2217.
          • Mail: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610. You may inspect comments during normal business hours at the same address.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Room 4091, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.

            Instructions: All submissions received must include Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1018-AT63 at the beginning. All comments received, including any personal information provided, will be available for public inspection at the above (“Hand Delivery/Courier”) address. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703-358-1714; Dr. George Allen, Wildlife Biologist, 703-358-1825; or Diane Pence, Regional Migratory Bird Coordinator, Hadley, Massachusetts, 413-253-8577.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Fish and Wildlife Service is the Federal agency with the primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. Our authority is based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which implements conventions with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (Russia). Raptors (birds of prey) are afforded Federal protection by the 1972 amendment to the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Animals, February 7, 1936, United States—Mexico, as amended; the Convention between the United States and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger of Extinction and Their Environment, September 19, 1974; and the Convention Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia) Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment, November 26, 1976.
        The taking and possession of raptors for falconry are strictly prohibited except as permitted under regulations implementing the MBTA. Raptors also may be protected by State regulations. Regulations governing the issuance of permits for migratory birds are authorized by the MBTA and subsequent regulations. They are in title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 10, 13, 21, and (for eagle falconry) 22.

        Regulations in 50 CFR part 21 provide for review and approval of State falconry laws by the Fish and Wildlife Service. A list of States whose falconry laws are approved by the Service is found in 50 CFR 21.29(k). The practice of falconry is authorized in those States. As provided in 50 CFR 21.29(a) and (c), the Director has reviewed certified copies of the falconry regulations adopted by the State of Connecticut and has determined that they meet or exceed Federal falconry standards. Federal falconry standards contained in 50 CFR 21.29(d) through (i) include permit requirements, classes of permits, examination procedures, facilities and equipment standards, raptor marking restrictions, and raptor taking restrictions. Connecticut regulations also meet or exceed all restrictions or conditions found in 50 CFR 21.29(j), which include requirements on the number, species, acquisition, and marking of raptors. Therefore, we are proposing that the State of Connecticut be listed under § 21.29(k) as a State that meets Federal falconry standards. Inclusion of Connecticut in this list would eliminate the current restriction that prohibits falconry in that State.
        Why Is This Rulemaking Needed?
        The need for the proposed changes to 50 CFR 21.29(k) arose from the desire of the State of Connecticut to institute a falconry program for the benefit of citizens interested in the sport of falconry. Accordingly, the State promulgated regulations that we have concluded meet the Federal requirements protecting migratory birds. The proposed changes to 50 CFR 21.29(k) are necessary to allow persons in the State of Connecticut to practice falconry under the regulations the State submitted for approval.
        Changes in the Regulations Governing Falconry
        We propose to add the State of Connecticut to the list of States with approved falconry regulations that will enable citizens to practice falconry in the State.

          Clarity of This Regulation. Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” appears in bold type and is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, “§ 21.29 Falconry standards and falconry permitting.”) (5) Does the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble help you to understand the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

        Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. You also may e-mail comments to Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

          Regulatory Planning and Review. In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule is not a significant regulatory action.
        a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required. This rule will affect a limited number of potential falconers in Connecticut.
        b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. The rule deals solely with governance of falconry in Connecticut. No other Federal agency has any role in regulating falconry.
        c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. There are no entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs associated with the regulation of falconry.
        d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. This rule simply adds Connecticut to the list of States with approved falconry regulations.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

          Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have examined this rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the change will merely approve the falconry regulations for Connecticut and allow the practice of falconry there. This determination is based on the fact that we are simply adding one State to the list of States with approved falconry regulations. This rule will have no significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, and no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
        This rule is not a major rule under SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
        a. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Approval of the Connecticut regulations will have only a very small effect on the economy. We estimate that 20 individuals would obtain falconry permits as a result of this rule, and many of the expenditures of those permittees would accrue to small businesses. The maximum number of birds allowed by a falconer is three, so the maximum number of birds likely to be possessed is 60. Some birds would be taken from the wild, but others could be purchased. Using one of the more expensive birds, the northern goshawk, as an estimate, the cost to procure a single bird is less than $5,000, which, with an upper limit of 60 birds, translates into $300,000. Expenditures for building facilities would be less than $32,000 for 60 birds, and for care and feeding less than $60,000. These expenditures, totaling less than $400,000, represent an upper limit of potential economic impact from the addition of Connecticut to the list of approved States.
        b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The practice of falconry does not significantly affect costs or prices in any sector of the economy.
        c. This rule will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Falconry is an endeavor of private individuals. Neither regulation nor practice of falconry significantly affects business activities.

          Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

        a. This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Falconry is an endeavor of private individuals. Neither regulation nor practice of falconry affects small government activities in any significant way.

        b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, i.e., it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

          Takings. In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property.

          Federalism. This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. It will not interfere with the State's ability to manage itself or its funds.

          Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

          Paperwork Reduction Act. We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved the information collection requirements of the Migratory Bird Permits Program and assigned clearance number 1018-0022, which expires 7/31/2007. This regulation does not change or add to the approved information collection. Information from the collection is used to document take of wild raptors for use in falconry and to document transfers of birds held for falconry between permittees. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          National Environmental Policy Act. We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Part 516 of the Department of the Interior Manual (DM). This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment (EA). We prepared an EA in July 1988 to support establishment of simpler, less restrictive regulations governing the use of most raptors in falconry. You can obtain a copy of the EA by contacting us at the address in the ADDRESSES section. This rule simply adds Connecticut to the list of States with approved falconry regulations. In the last five years we have added several States to the list of those with approved falconry regulations. Those additions generated few public or agency comments. We view this action as a routine action with precedent. Therefore, the action is categorically excluded under Department of the Interior NEPA procedures as an “amendment to an approved action when such changes have no or minor potential environmental impact” (516 DM 6, Appendix 1.4 (A)(1)).

          Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes. In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule will not interfere with the Tribes' ability to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate falconry on tribal lands.

          Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (Executive Order 13211). On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule only affects the practice of falconry in the United States, it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and will not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Are There Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action?
        The environmental impacts of this action are extremely limited.

          Socioeconomic. We do not expect this action to have discernible socioeconomic impacts.

          Raptor populations. This rule does not significantly alter the conduct of falconry in the United States. We believe that there only about 10 falconers or individuals interested in being falconers in Connecticut, and take of raptors for falconry in the State will be prohibited by the State falconry regulations. Therefore, this rule will have a negligible effect on raptor populations.

          Endangered and Threatened Species. The regulation change will not affect threatened or endangered species in Connecticut for the reasons set forth below.
        Is This Rule in Compliance With Endangered Species Act Requirements?

        Yes. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that “The Secretary [of the Interior] shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.” It further states that the Secretary must “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat * * * ” The Division of Threatened and Endangered Species concurred with our finding that the revised regulations will not affect listed species.

          Author. The author of this rulemaking is Dr. George T. Allen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.

          Public Participation. You may submit written comments on this rule to the location identified in the ADDRESSES section, or you may submit electronic comments to any of the electronic comments addresses listed in the ADDRESSES section. We must receive your comments before the date listed in the DATES section. All comments will become part of the Administrative Record for the review of the approval. When submitting electronic or written comments, refer to the file number RIN 1018-AT63.
        When submitting your electronic comment, please include your name and return address in your message, identify it as comments on the falconry regulations change, and submit your message as an ASCII file. Do not use special characters or any encryption. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your electronic comments, you can contact us directly at 703-358-1714.
        When submitting written comments, please include your name and return address in your letter and identify it as comments on the falconry regulations change. To facilitate our compilation of the Administrative Record for this action, you must submit written comments on 81/2 inch by 11 inch paper.

        All comments on the proposed rule will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at Room 4091 at the Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610. The complete file for this proposed rule is available, by appointment, during normal business hours at the same address. You may call 703-358-1825 to make an appointment to view the files.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. An individual respondent may request that we withhold his or her home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. We will not consider anonymous comments.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
          Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend part 21, subpart C, subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
          1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 703-712; Pub. L. 106-108; 16 U.S.C. 668a.

            § 21.29
            [Amended]
            2. Amend § 21.29 by adding to paragraph (k) the word “Connecticut,” between the words “*Colorado,” and “*Delaware,”.

            Dated: December 10, 2004.
            Craig Manson,
            Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 04-27775 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58; Report No. 3075]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petitions for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Jennifer A. Manner, on behalf of HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC, Bohdan R. Pankiw, on behalf of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and Arthur F. McNulty, on behalf of Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before May 18, 2017. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before May 30, 2017.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Alexander Minard, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7400 or email: Alexander.Minard@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3075, released April 25, 2017. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this document does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

          Subject: In the Matter of Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, FCC 17-12, published at 82 FR 14466, March 21, 2017, in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2017-08858 Filed 5-2-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
        Occupational Safety and Health Administration
        29 CFR Part 1910
        [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Formerly Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665 and OSHA Docket No. S-031)]
        RIN 1218-AC09
        Explosives

          AGENCY:
          Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; close of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On April 13, 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor published a proposed rule entitled Explosives with a comment period that ended 7/12/2007. On July 9, 2007, the comment period was extended to 9/10/2007. At this time the U.S. Department of Labor is closing the comment period effective July 17, 2007. The Department intends to re-propose the Explosives NPRM at a later date in order to clarify the intent of the rulemaking.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the proposed rule published on April 13, 2007 (72 FR 18792) is closed effective July 17, 2007.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For general information and press inquiries, contact Mr. Kevin Ropp, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999. For technical inquiries, contact Donald Pittenger, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2255 or fax (202) 693-1663.

            Signed at Washington, DC, on July 13, 2007.
            Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
            Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

      [FR Doc. E7-13925 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        14 CFR Part 257
        [OST Docket No. 2004-19083]
        RIN 2105-AD49
        Disclosure of Code Sharing and Long-Term Wet Lease Arrangements

          AGENCY:
          Department of Transportation; Office of the Secretary.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          The Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) is proposing to amend its rule governing the disclosure of code-share and long-term wet lease arrangements in print advertisements of scheduled passenger services to permit carriers to disclose generically that some of the advertised service may involve travel on another carrier, so long as they also identify a list of all potential carriers involved in serving the markets being advertised. This proposed action is being taken in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by United Airlines, Inc.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2005. The Department will consider late-filed comments only to the extent practicable.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 2004-19083 by any of the following methods: Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Trace Atkinson or Blane Workie, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street SW., Room 4116, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9342 (Voice) or (202) 366-7152 (Fax).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Secretary of Transportation has the authority to define unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition. 49 U.S.C. 41712. Since 1985, it has been the Department's stated policy to view the failure of U.S. carriers to provide reasonable and timely notice to consumers of the existence of a code-share arrangement as an unfair and deceptive practice. 50 FR 38508. The Department further strengthened its consumer notification rules and policies to ensure that consumers would have pertinent information about airline code-sharing arrangements and long-term wet leases in domestic and international air transportation through the adoption of 14 CFR part 257 on March 15, 1999. 64 FR 12838. Section 257.5(d) of that part requires carriers in any print advertisement for service in a city-pair market that is provided under a code-sharing arrangement or long-term wet lease to clearly indicate the nature of the service in reasonably sized type and identify the transporting carrier[s] by corporate name and by any other name under which the service is held out to the public.
        Petition for Rulemaking
        United Airlines, Inc., (United) filed a petition for rulemaking with the Department on September 7, 2004, asking that we amend 14 CFR 257.5(d). United asserts that the current print advertisement disclosures have become increasingly burdensome on network carriers while failing to provide meaningful off-setting consumer benefits. United points out that a network carrier typically publishes print advertisements offering service for travel in multiple domestic and international city pairs over a large number of alternative routings, some of which would be provided by carriers other than the advertising carrier pursuant to a code-share or a wet lease arrangement. Presently, in order to comply with section 257.5(d), such a carrier must provide consumers with a detailed set of disclosures that will vary depending on the number of alternative routings that may be available for travel in a specific city-pair. This results in print advertisements that include numerous footnotes relating exclusively to the disclosure of code-share and wet lease arrangements. According to United, not only do such disclosures impose a significant burden on carriers, but these disclosures may also serve to increase consumer confusion and, at best, provide only limited information to consumers about the carrier that would be operating a particular flight the consumer desires.
        To ease the burden on carriers, United requests that section 257.5(d) be reinterpreted to permit carriers to provide a generic disclosure in print advertisements indicating that some of the service offered may involve travel on one or more of its listed partner carriers. United contends that if its proposal is adopted, the information consumers obtain in practical terms would not change and the burden on carriers would be eliminated. United emphasizes that print advertisements serve only as the first opportunity to inform consumers about an airline's service offerings and consumers will continue to receive more detailed disclosures about any code-sharing arrangement that may be relevant to their travel plans before making any travel purchase decisions through telephone inquiries to reservation offices or by reviewing Internet flight listings.
        Comments on the Petition
        Four carriers, an airline association and, Orbitz, LLC (Orbitz) submitted comments on United's petition for rulemaking. The Air Carrier Association of America (ACAA) and Southwest Airlines (Southwest) filed comments opposing the petition while American Airlines, Inc. (American), Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta), US Airways, Inc. (US Airways), and Orbitz filed comments in support of the petition.
        In addition to supporting United's petition, two carriers and Orbitz seek additional relief. American asks that United's requested change to DOT's rule governing the disclosure of code-share and long-term wet lease arrangements in print advertisements also apply to Internet advertisements. US Airways requests that the Department act expeditiously on United's petition by limiting the comment period for this NPRM to 30 days and/or moving directly to issue an interim final rule on this matter. Orbitz urges that any amended rule apply not just to carriers, but explicitly to travel agents as well; however, it also cautions against a common standard applicable to both print and Internet advertising for all of the Department's rules. Orbitz contends that rules designed specifically for the static print medium may artificially restrain the ability of electronic advertisers to provide complete fare information to consumers in a dynamic, intuitive, and interactive way.
        A. Print Advertisements
        Commenters supporting an amendment to DOT's rule governing the disclosure of code-share and long-term wet lease arrangements in print advertisements agree with United that the current disclosure requirements may actually serve to confuse customers rather than inform them that advertised services may involve travel on code-share partners. According to Delta, without knowing a customer's specific itinerary, it is impossible to determine whether transportation will be provided by the advertising carrier or by one or more code-share partners. Delta, like United, asserts that once enough details are known about a customer's actual travel plans, carriers can and do provide accurate and detailed disclosure information about any actual code-sharing involving particular flights. All four carriers that filed in support of United's petition also argue that the increased burden of the current code-share disclosure rule on carriers that rely extensively on code-sharing to serve their customers adds significant costs without providing corresponding benefits to consumers. Orbitz agrees that the current rule is onerous and fails to offer off-setting consumer benefits and protections. United further contends that those opposing its petition are interested not in protecting consumers, but in preventing the Department from reducing the regulatory burden on such network carriers. In addition, US Airways argues that an unintended consequence of the current rule is to create incentives for carriers not to advertise in smaller markets because of the high cost of compliance with the rule as now written.

        On the other hand, Southwest and ACAA argue that the Department should not amend its rule governing the disclosure of code-share and long-term wet lease arrangements in print advertisements because, they assert, there is no empirical evidence to show that the Department's reasons for requiring route-specific disclosure requirements are any less valid today than they were when they were first adopted. They note that the very carriers who initially argued for the rule requiring the disclosure of code-share and wet-lease arrangements are now seeking a change in the rule because they have increased their own code-share relationships. ACAA appears to be concerned that the adoption of United's proposal would result in advertisements that would increase the market dominance of large carriers. ACAA explains that customers seeing such an ad, even if told later that the flight will be operated by a code-share partner, will remember the ad and focus on the largest carrier in a particular city-pair market which will in turn allow a larger carrier to increase its market dominance. ACAA requests that the Department undertake a thorough review of the impact of code-sharing on consumers and competition before considering United's petition, while Southwest argues that rather than weakening the current rule respecting disclosure of code-share and long-term wet leases in print advertisements, the current requirements should be strengthened, as violations of the current rule persist despite the fact that these requirements have been in place for several years.
        ACAA and Southwest also assert that the market-specific disclosure currently required provides consumers with valuable information concerning who will actually provide the air transportation on the specific flights the passenger is considering. They stress that this policy correctly recognizes that consumers are best served when they are given relevant information about travel choices at the beginning of their decision-making process rather than at the end of it when they have already narrowed their choices. Accordingly, they argue that it would be contrary to the public interest for carriers to suggest that they offer multiple flights in a particular market when in actuality, many of the flights advertised are operated by code-share partners. ACAA contends that under United's proposal, members of the public would have no way of knowing which flights are operated under code-share arrangements and which carriers operate those flights. In addition, in support of its argument against United's proposal, Southwest cites the Department's earlier findings that a general disclosure does not suffice to properly inform consumers about the particular flights they are considering for travel and that a failure to disclose such a relationship is deceptive and can result in confusion, hardship, and inconvenience to consumers.
        B. Internet Advertisements
        In asking that we change our rule governing the disclosure of code-share and long-term wet lease arrangements not only with regard to print advertisements, but with respect to Internet advertisements, as well, American argues that the same difficulties in constructing print advertisements that United identifies in its petition also arise with respect to Internet advertising. American also asserts that there is longstanding DOT policy that Internet listings provide code-share disclosures in a manner required of print media fare ads. US Airways joins American in asking that the code-share disclosure rule change requested by United be extended to Internet advertisements. Orbitz agrees with American that the Department should amend 14 CFR 257.5(d) to explicitly state that the amended rule applies to both print and Internet advertising. Orbitz claims that for online ticket agents, the problems posed by the current rule are more acute in that a single Web page may advertise multiple city-pairs operated under code-share or wet-lease arrangements by different carriers.
        C. Expedited Review of Petition
        In support of its request for expedited review of United's petition, US Airways claims that code-sharing is not a novel practice, but is well understood by airline passengers, and that the Department is capable of determining whether consumers require extended verbiage in the code-sharing notification. Secondly, US Airways states the Department should act expeditiously because code-share advertising has become more burdensome as the industry has evolved, particularly for carriers like US Airways that have multiple code-sharing partners. No other comment was received on this point.
        Agency Review of Petition
        As noted above, the Department has a long history of requiring code-share and wet lease disclosures in print advertisements. Many of the reasons for requiring such disclosures were discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking dated August 10, 1994, and the final rule dated March 15, 1999. 59 FR 40836 and 64 FR 12838, respectively. However, since that time, there have been many changes in the marketplace, including an increase in the number of carriers providing service in multiple domestic and international city-pair markets over a large number of alternative routings, many of which are provided by carriers other than the advertising carrier pursuant to a code-share or a wet lease arrangement. The unintended practical effect of current section 257.5(d) is that carriers that rely extensively on code-sharing to serve customers must now include numerous footnotes relating exclusively to the disclosure of code-share and wet lease arrangements in print advertisements.
        We are tentatively of the opinion that the benefits of the additional specific notice provided consumers in a print advertisement under the present rule may not outweigh the detriment to carriers and the public of continuing to require such detail. We not only agree that these footnotes are burdensome for carriers, but we also see merit in the argument that the many separate footnotes now required where multiple markets are contained in a single advertisement may also confuse customers rather than inform them of advertised services. Therefore, while we will continue to consider a failure to disclose code-share and wet lease arrangements in print advertisements to be an unfair and deceptive trade practice and to vigorously enforce any such violations, we are tentatively of the opinion that continuing to require that carriers identify each specific partner carrier that serves each particular city-pair route or market being advertised is not necessary for consumers adequately to be informed of the advertised service. Accordingly, we are proposing to grant United's petition for rulemaking and amend our rule governing code-share and long-term wet lease disclosure in print advertisements to permit a generic statement indicating that some of the advertised service may involve travel on another carrier, so long as such advertisements also include a list of all potential code-share or wet lease carriers involved in serving the markets being advertised. We specifically request comments from the public, particularly air travel consumers, as to the benefits, if any, of the market-specific disclosures currently required in print advertisements and whether any such benefits outweigh the burdens on carriers and the potential confusion for consumers from including such additional information in print advertisements.
        The Department further believes that it is important, as has been suggested by ACAA, that the current rule not be amended without careful consideration and full opportunity for comment, but we are aware of no reason why other aspects of the code-share rule need to be reviewed at this time, as ACAA would have us do. Therefore, we will limit our review of the rule to the issue raised by United, and not grant US Airway's request for expedited review but will instead provide for a full 60-day comment period on this NPRM. All interested parties are encouraged to comment.

        With regard to American's request to change DOT's rule governing the disclosure of code-share and long-term wet lease arrangements in Internet advertisements, the Department is not persuaded that the same burdens and potential consumer confusion that may exist in constructing and reading print advertisements that United and other commenters assert exist also arise with respect to Internet advertising. With regard to Internet advertisements, it appears to us that entities soliciting air transportation via the Internet can easily and clearly disclose information to consumers regarding each specific partner carrier that serves each particular city-pair route or market being advertised by using hyperlinks or other techniques. Accordingly, we have not proposed here to expand United's petition for a change in our code-share and wet lease disclosure rule to include Internet solicitations. However, we recognize that there may be cost burdens to carriers associated with market-specific disclosure of code-share and long-term wet lease arrangements through Internet advertising of which we are not aware and encourage all interested parties to comment. We are particularly interested in receiving comments on possible benefits or detriments of not expanding United's petition for a change in our code-share and wet lease disclosure rule to include Internet advertising as well as reasons for the Department to view Internet advertising differently or the same as print advertising.
        Regulatory Analysis and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        The Department has determined that this proposal, if adopted as a final rule, would not be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The proposed rule would require the disclosure of less information than is required by the current rule and the Department expects an adoption of the proposed rule to reduce the regulatory burden imposed by the current rule. Therefore, this rule is expected to have a minimal economic effect and further regulatory evaluation is not necessary.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would reduce the regulatory burden on network carriers that rely extensively on code-sharing to serve customers but does not impose any additional burdens on either small or large carriers. The Department seeks comment on whether there are small entity impacts that should be considered. If comments provide information that there are significant small entity impacts, the Department will prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis at the final rule stage.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The Department has determined that this proposal would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore would not have federalism implications.
        Executive Order 13084
        This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this proposed rule, if adopted, would not significantly or uniquely affect the Indian tribal communities, and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of the Executive Order do not apply.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The proposed rule does not contain any Federal mandate that would result in such expenditures. Therefore, the requirements of title II of the Act do not apply.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        The proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 2507 et seq.). There is a current OMB control number assigned to this rulemaking, and the OMB number is 2105-0537.

          List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 257
          Air carriers, Consumer protection, Foreign air carriers.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Transportation proposes to amend 14 CFR part 257 as follows:

          CHAPTER II—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

            PART 257—DISCLOSURE OF CODE-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS AND LONG-TERM WET LEASES
            (1) The authority for 14 CFR part 257 would continue to read as follows:

              Authority:
              49 U.S.C. 40113(a) and 41712.

            (2) Section 257.5(d) would be revised to read as follows:

              § 257.5
              Notice requirement.

              (d) In any printed advertisement published in or mailed to or from the United States for service in a city-pair market that is provided under a code-sharing arrangement or long-term wet lease, the advertisement shall prominently disclose that the advertised service may involve travel on another carrier and clearly indicate the nature of the service in reasonably sized type and shall identify all potential transporting carriers involved in the markets being advertised by corporate name and by any other name under which that service is held out to the public. In any radio or television advertisement broadcast in the United States for service in a city-pair market that is provided under a code-sharing or long-term wet lease, the advertisement shall include at least a generic disclosure statement, such as “Some services are provided by other airlines.”

              Issued this 5th Day of January, 2005, at Washington, DC, pursuant to 49 CFR 1.56a.
              Karan K. Bhatia,
              Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

      [FR Doc. 05-737 Filed 1-12-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-62-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2011-0024; 4500030113]
        RIN 1018-AY98
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Northern Long-Eared Bat With a Rule Under Section 4(d) of the Act; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on January 16, 2015, to set forth a species-specific rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), should we determine this species warrants listing as a threatened species under the Act. In that proposal, we provided the wrong address for the submission of hard-copy comments. With this document, we correct our error.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments on the January 16, 2015, proposed rule that are received or postmarked on or before March 17, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the January 16, 2015, proposed rule by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2011-0024, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2011-0024; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by one of the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (for more information, see the Public Comments section of the January 16, 2015, proposed rule at 80 FR 2371).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tony Sullins, Endangered Species Chief, Midwest Regional Office, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437; telephone 612-725-3548; or facsimile 612-725-3548. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In a proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2015, at 80 FR 2371, the ADDRESSES section provided the wrong address for the submission of hard-copy comments. The corrected ADDRESSES section appears above.

          Dated: January 27, 2015.
          Tina A. Campbell,
          Chief, Division of Policy and Directives Management.

      [FR Doc. 2015-01804 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P