        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [FRL-7971-4]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substance; Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of intent to partially delete the East Tailing portion of the Tar Lake Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) Region 5 is issuing a notice of intent to partially delete the East Tailing Area of the Tar Lake Superfund Site (Site) located in Antrim County, Michigan, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this notice of intent to partially delete. The East Tailing Area, as defined in the Remedial Investigation Report dated August 7, 2000, includes all soil, subsurface soil and groundwater associated with that part of the Tar Lake Superfund Site. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Michigan, through the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final notice of partial deletion of the East Tailing Area of the Tar Lake Superfund Site without prior notice of intent to partially delete because we view this as a non-controversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this partial deletion in the preamble to the direct final notice of partial deletion. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on the direct final notice of partial deletion, we will not take further action. If we receive timely adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final notice of partial deletion and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final partial deletion notice based on adverse comments received on this notice of intent to partially delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this notice of intent to partially delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For additional information, see the direct final notice of partial deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          DATES:
          Comments concerning this Site must be received by October 21, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments should be addressed to: Stuart Hill, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA (P-19J), 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604, 312-886-0689 or 1-800-621-8431. Electronic comments should be sent to bloom.thomas@epa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Thomas Bloom, Remedial Project Manager at (312) 886-1967, or Gladys Beard, State NPL Deletion Process Manager at (312) 886-7253 or 1-800-621-8431, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA (SR-6J), 77 W. Jackson, IL 60604.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information, see the Direct Final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          Information Repositories: Repositories have been established to provide detailed information concerning this decision at the following address: EPA Region 5 Library, 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-5821, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.; Mancelona Public Library, 202 W. State Street, Mancelona, MI 49945, (231) 587-9471, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Tuesday and Thursday 6 p.m to 8 p.m.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

          Dated: September 6, 2005.
          Bharat Mathur,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 05-18835 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 141222999-5114-01]
        RIN 0648-BE72
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Trawl Rationalization Program; Midwater Trawl Fishery Season Date Change

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This action would implement revisions to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program affecting the limited entry midwater trawl fisheries managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This action would revise the Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program regulations to change the primary season opening date for the shorebased whiting fishery and the shorebased non-whiting midwater trawl fishery to May 15 north of 40°30′ N. lat. to the U.S./Canada border. This moves the season a month earlier off Washington and Oregon, and a month and half later off northern California (north of 40°30′ N. lat.), increasing consistency in the season start date along the coast and between the shorebased and at-sea midwater trawl fleets.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before March 19, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0016, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0016, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; Attn: Jamie Goen.
          • Fax: 206-526-6426; Attn: Jamie Goen.

            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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jamie Goen, 206-526-4656; jamie.goen@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        In January 2011, NMFS implemented a trawl rationalization program, a type of catch share program, for the Pacific coast groundfish fishery's trawl fleet. The program was adopted through Amendment 20 to the FMP and consists of three sectors: An IFQ program for the shorebased trawl fleet (including vessels targeting whiting and non-whiting with midwater trawl gear); and cooperative (coop) programs for the at-sea mothership (MS) and catcher/processor (C/P) trawl fleets (whiting only).
        Since implementation, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS have been working to implement additional regulatory changes to further improve the trawl rationalization program and respond to industry requests. Changing the midwater trawl fishery season date would further increase consistency in the season start date along the coast and between the shorebased and at-sea midwater trawl fleets. This rule would revise the Shorebased IFQ Program regulations to change the primary season opening date for the midwater trawl fishery (whiting and non-whiting) to May 15 north of 40°30′ N. lat. to the U.S./Canada border. This would move the season a month earlier off Washington and Oregon and a month and half later off northern California (north of 40°30′ N. lat.).

        The Council discussed the season date change at its March and April 2012 meetings, with final Council recommendations to NMFS during the September 2012 Council meeting. In addition, NMFS received further clarification on these issues from the Council at its November 2014 meeting.
        Evolution of Seasons
        While this action would affect the season start date for shorebased midwater trawl fisheries that target whiting or other groundfish (“non-whiting”), historically the season start dates were for midwater fisheries targeting whiting. However, since 2011 and the start of the trawl rationalization program, the Pacific whiting start date applies to the use of all midwater trawl gear regardless of the target species. In 1991, foreign fishing in U.S. waters ended and whiting became a fully domestic fishery with both at-sea and shorebased vessels. The season started on January 1 but fishing did not start until late spring when the fish were more available. In 1992, the season start date was set at April 15. In 1996, the at-sea sectors (mothership and catcher/processor) and the shorebased sector north of 42° N. lat. (northern fishery off Washington and Oregon) all started on May 15, the shorebased sector between 42° and 40°30′ N. lat. (central fishery off northern California) started on March 1, and the shorebased sector south of 40°30′ N. lat. (southern fishery off central and southern California) continued to start on April 15. Since 1997, the whiting seasons have started as follows: May 15 for the at-sea sectors, June 15 for the northern shorebased sector, April 1 for the central shorebased sector, and April 15 for the southern shorebased sector.
        The 1997 delay in the season start date for the northern shorebased fishery to June 15 allowed shorebased vessels to deliver whiting to at-sea motherships for a full month or until the at-sea allocation was met and then to switch their delivery strategy to shorebased facilities until the shorebased allocation was met for the year. The delay for the northern shorebased fishery from May 15 to June 15 also allowed shorebased vessels to complete their May-June DTS (Dover sole, thornyhead, sablefish complex) cumulative limits before the start of the whiting fishery (it was not permissible to land more than 60 percent of the DTS limit in a particular month). The shift from a May 15 to a June 15 opening (and from March 1 to April 1 for the central area) was expected to allow the whiting to grow to a larger size prior to harvest. These date changes also affected bycatch of other species caught with midwater trawl gear. Bycatch rates of rockfish were expected to increase with the later northern start date because more of the whiting stock biomass would be in northern areas, where rockfish such as yellowtail and widow are more available to midwater gear. Bycatch of salmon was expected to be difficult to predict, but presumed to be lower in the summer months for the shorebased fishery and higher later in the year for the at-sea fishery.
        The 1997 season date change also included an allocation decision to limit the California fisheries to taking a total of 5 percent of the shorebased allocation prior to the start of the northern fishery to prevent further expansion in that area. In addition to modifying the season dates and establishing a California early season allocation, the 1997 action also established a framework in the regulations for modifying the season opening dates on an annual basis (50 CFR 660.131(b)(2)). This action to change the northern and central shorebased season start dates for midwater fisheries (whiting and non-whiting) to May 15 would not change the framework regulation at § 660.131(b)(2) nor would it change the California early season allocation, other than to limit it to the southern shorebased fishery.
        Re-Emerging Non-Whiting Midwater Trawl Fishery
        Prior to 2001, a shorebased midwater trawl fishery existed, primarily targeting widow, yellowtail, and chilipepper rockfishes. In 2001 and 2002, catches in the non-whiting midwater fishery were drastically reduced by management measures to protect widow and other overfished rockfish. Widow rockfish was declared overfished in 2001, reducing the amount that could be harvested to bycatch. In addition, large coastwide closed areas, called rockfish conservation areas, were implemented in 2002 to reduce the catch of several overfished rockfish species. These changes eliminated the shorebased non-whiting midwater trawl fishery. Since implementation of the trawl rationalization program in 2011 and the declaration of widow rockfish as rebuilt, there are increasing opportunities for non-whiting midwater trawl fisheries. With implementation of the trawl rationalization program, the regulatory distinctions between the shorebased whiting and the non-whiting fishery were blurred. The season start date for the whiting fishery was interpreted to apply to all midwater fishing (whiting and non-whiting). The season date change in this action would also affect the non-whiting midwater trawl fishery.
        Expected Impacts
        Changing the season opening date for the midwater trawl fishery (whiting and non-whiting) to May 15 north of 40°30′ N. lat. to the U.S./Canada border would move the season a month earlier off Washington and Oregon, and a month and half later off northern California (north of 40°30′ N. lat.). This action would not change the areas open to groundfish fishing or the total amount of groundfish available for harvest, but it would shift when those fish can be caught. A single coastwide opening north of 40°30′ N. lat. would simplify the regulations. This change would align the northern and central shorebased fisheries with the at-sea fisheries, increase flexibility for the northern shorebased fishery, and equalize opportunity among most of the midwater sectors (except the southern shorebased fishery which would remain at April 15). With implementation of the trawl rationalization program in 2011, it is no longer necessary to stagger seasons in the whiting fishery to increase access to groundfish. While moving the season start date for the central shorebased fishery would result in a shortened season for the central area, no impact to this fishery is expected because there has not been harvest in northern California since implementation of the trawl rationalization program.
        In addition to the expected impacts on groundfish, NMFS must also consider the impacts on salmon. Salmon, predominately Chinook, are caught as bycatch in groundfish midwater trawl fisheries. Some of the Chinook caught with midwater trawl gear are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS considered the effects of ongoing implementation of the groundfish FMP on listed salmonid species in a biological opinion issued on December 15, 1999. That opinion noted that steelhead, sockeye, and cutthroat trout are rarely, if ever, encountered in the groundfish fishery. Coho and chum are caught in relatively low numbers in the whiting fishery with average catch per year coastwide on the order of tens to a few hundred fish and in the bottom trawl fishery on the order of tens of fish per year. The 1999 opinion focused on bycatch of Chinook salmon, which comprises the largest portion of salmonid bycatch in the whiting fishery.

        The 1999 opinion determined that the fishery was not likely to jeopardize any of the ESA-listed Chinook and provided an incidental take statement estimating that total Chinook bycatch (listed and unlisted fish) for the whiting fishery (MS, C/P, shorebased, and tribal combined), would likely be 11,000 Chinook per year or 0.05 fish per metric ton (mt) of whiting catch. The 1999 opinion indicated consultation must be reinitiated if Chinook bycatch rates exceed these amounts. For the bottom trawl fishery, the 1999 biological opinion estimated that 6,000 to 9,000 Chinook salmon would be taken annually. The biological opinion concluded that if the bottom trawl fishery changes substantially in magnitude or character or if bycatch exceeds 9,000 Chinook, consultation must be reinitiated.
        In 2013, NMFS reinitiated section 7 consultation on the FMP to address the effects on salmonids caused by the re-emerging use of midwater trawl gear to target non-whiting groundfish species such as yellowtail and widow rockfish. The request was made due to the evolution of the trawl fishery under the trawl rationalization framework and improving conditions for species such as widow rockfish that were expected to change the characteristics of the fishery. In addition, West Coast Groundfish Observer Program data reports showed new estimates of Chinook and coho salmon bycatch in the nearshore fixed gear fisheries (open access and limited entry fisheries), limited entry sablefish fishery, and open access California Halibut fishery. In October 2014, the whiting fishery exceeded the 11,000 Chinook and 0.05 Chinook salmon/mt whiting reinitiation triggers stated in the 1999 biological opinion. Given this, NMFS determined that the reinitiation should address the effects on listed salmonids of all fishing under the FMP.
        In the interim, NMFS will be monitoring the take of salmon inseason and expects industry to take measures to reduce salmon bycatch, if needed. All midwater trawl fisheries have 100 percent monitoring and are required to track the catch of prohibited and protected species, such as salmon.
        NMFS and the Council estimated the bycatch of Chinook in 2015 based on the amount of target species (whiting, widow, and yellowtail rockfish) available to harvest. While the allowable harvest amounts for these target species will not be determined until the spring, they are expected to increase in 2015 and 2016. However, catch of salmon in groundfish trawl fisheries is highly variable from year to year, including in years when the season was as early as April 15 and as late as June 15. For salmon listed under the ESA, NMFS expects the bycatch of Chinook to remain within the amounts considered in the 1999 biological opinion for all groundfish trawl fisheries combined (20,000 Chinook) even if harvest limits for target groundfish species increases. For more information, see the draft environmental assessment at the Web site provided or the ESA information listed in the Classification section of this preamble.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

        The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this action. The draft EA is available on the Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/ or on NMFS' Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/Trawl-Program/index.cfm.

        Pursuant to the procedures established to implement section 6 of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) was also prepared on the action and is included as part of the IRFA. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and a summary of the IRFA, per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a) follows:
        As described above, this action would revise the Shorebased IFQ Program regulations to change the primary season opening date for the whiting and non-whiting midwater trawl fisheries to May 15 north of 40°30′ N. lat. to the U.S./Canada border. This would move the season a month earlier off Washington and Oregon, and a month and half later off northern California (north of 40°30′ N. lat.), increasing consistency in the season start date along the coast and between the shorebased and at-sea midwater trawl fleets.
        This action would affect shorebased midwater trawlers in the trawl rationalization program and the processors that receive their product. During the 2011 to 2014 period, 30 midwater trawl vessels delivered to 10 shoreside processing plants in this fishery. Some vessels share common ownership, other vessels are owned by processing companies, and some companies own multiple processing plants. After accounting for these relationships, there are 26 entities that have participated in the fishery, 22 of which are small entities, based on NMFS' review of available information.
        The alternatives considered changing the season start date for the northern fishery, off Washington and Oregon from 42° N. lat. to the U.S./Canada border, from June 15 to May 15 and for the central fishery, off northern California from 40′30 N. lat. to 42° N. lat., from April 1 to May 15. The April 15 start data for the southern fishery, south of 40°30′ N. lat., would remain unchanged.
        Under the Action Alternative (May 15 season start from 40°30′ N. lat. to the U.S./Canada border), the same amount of whiting and non-whiting groundfish species will be available for harvest using midwater trawl gear as under the No Action Alternative (April 1 between 40°30′ N. lat. to 42° N. lat., June 15 from 42° N. lat. to the U.S./Canada border). The proposed season opening date change will give fishers in the northern fishery greater flexibility in maximizing net operating profits and social benefits from fixed amounts of fish (for which quota share is required to cover impacts), thus a positive change in impact to the harvest sector is projected under the Action Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative. No change in impact is expected in the central fishery in the near term under the Action Alternative because the fishery in that area has been inactive with the Shorebased IFQ Program in place.

        The main impact to the harvest sector from the Action Alternative, (as compared to the No Action Alternative) in the northern fishery will be to increase the flexibility that individual vessel operators have in using their IFQ with midwater gear by adding one month to the duration of their season. This additional time in the northern fishery should allow vessels and processors more opportunity to adjust their operations to changing market conditions and to changes in other fisheries. Increasing the time available to fish in the northern fishery may lead to increased harvests. During 2014, the total IFQ fishery (fixed gear, midwater, and bottom trawl) left 1.6 million lbs of chilipepper rockfish (70% of the total IFQ quota), 46 million lbs of Pacific whiting (17%), 750,000 lbs of widow rockfish (37%), and 3.9 million lbs of yellowtail rockfish (60%) unharvested. Increasing the time available to fish in the northern fishery may allow fishermen and processors to adjust their operations to increase participation in other fisheries such as the crab, shrimp, or mothership fishery for whiting. One of the reasons for the staggered opening (May 15 for at-sea and June 15 for shorebased) was to reduce the conflict between the catcher vessels fishing for motherships and those in the shorebased fishery. Both fisheries were managed through season closures, which resulted in a race for fish (as “derby” fisheries). The trawl rationalization program, however, reserves for each quota holder a specific amount of fish, eliminating the race for fish and reducing the potential for conflicting opportunities. With the trawl rationalization program in place, a common opening date for these fisheries would not force quota holders to choose between them (i.e. participation in one fishery would not preclude participation in the other). The mothership is now managed by a single coop that plans participation preseason. Increasing the season length may allow the co-op to consider allowing alternative vessels to participate in the coop.
        With an increase in the fishing season, the number of shorebased processors and vessels participating in the fishery are not expected to change. The midwater fishery is predominantly a Pacific whiting fishery where major investments in equipment would be needed by a processor to enter the fishery. Vessels participation is also not expected to change. Given that large portions of the IFQ allocations are unharvested, improvements in the basic markets for midwater trawl species will determine participation. Changing the season length will provide increased opportunities to take advantage of these improvements.
        In summary, an extended shorebased season will increase the choices available for the northern fishery (off Oregon and Washington), providing an opportunity to improve business decisions and potential profits from the fishery. For the central fishery, there would be a contraction in flexibility to harvest from April 1 to May 15. Reducing the season in the central fishery may have a chilling effect on the potential growth in the fishery. However, data for 2011 through 2014 shows no midwater trawl gear harvest is occurring in this area under the IFQ program.
        NMFS believes this rule, if finalized in this form, would not have a significant difference in impacts when comparing small versus large businesses in terms of disproportionality and profitability, given available information. Through this rulemaking process, we are specifically requesting comments on this conclusion.
        There are no Federal reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this action. There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
        NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the Groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern California). These biological opinions have concluded that implementation of the FMP is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
        NMFS issued a Supplemental Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006, concluding that neither the higher observed bycatch of Chinook in the 2005 whiting fishery nor new data regarding salmon bycatch in the groundfish bottom trawl fishery required a reconsideration of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the FMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs. Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) were relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.
        NMFS has reinitiated section 7 consultation on the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP with respect to its effects on listed salmonids. In the event the consultation identifies either reasonable and prudent alternatives to address jeopardy concerns, or reasonable and prudent measures to minimize incidental take, NMFS would coordinate with the Council to put additional alternatives or measures into place, as required. After reviewing the available information, NMFS has concluded that, consistent with sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) of the ESA, this action will not jeopardize any listed species, would not adversely modify any designated critical habitat, and will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures.
        On December 7, 2012, NMFS completed a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid marine species, including listed eulachon, the southern distinct population segment (DPS) of green sturgeon, humpback whales, the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions, and leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also concluded that the fishery is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for green sturgeon and leatherback sea turtles. An analysis included in the same document as the opinion concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles, olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the critical habitat for Steller sea lions. Since that biological opinion, the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions was delisted on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140); however, this delisting did not change the designation of the codified critical habitat for the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions. On January 21, 2013, NMFS informally consulted on the fishery's effects on eulachon to consider whether the 2012 opinion should be reconsidered for eulachon in light of new information from the 2011 fishery and the proposed chafing gear modifications. NMFS determined that information about bycatch of eulachon in 2011 and chafing gear regulations did not change the effects that were analyzed in the December 7, 2012 biological opinion, or provide any other basis to reinitiate consultation.

        On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery will not jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. The FWS also concurred that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet, California least tern, southern sea otter, bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat.

        West Coast pot fisheries for sablefish are considered Category II fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), indicating occasional interactions. All other West Coast groundfish fisheries, including the trawl fishery, are considered Category III fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a remote likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals. MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) requires that NMFS authorize the taking of ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries if it makes the requisite findings, including a finding that the incidental mortality and serious injury from commercial fisheries will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock. As noted above, NMFS concluded in its biological opinion for the 2012 groundfish fisheries that these fisheries were not likely to jeopardize Steller sea lions or humpback whales. The eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lions was delisted under the ESA on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). On September 4, 2013, based on its negligible impact determination dated August 28, 2013, NMFS issued a permit for a period of three years to authorize the incidental taking of humpback whales by the sablefish pot fishery (78 FR 54553). This proposed rule was developed after meaningful collaboration, through the Council process, with the tribal representative on the Council. The proposed regulations have no direct effect on the tribes; these proposed regulations were deemed by the Council as “necessary or appropriate” to implement the FMP as amended.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.

          Dated: February 10, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

        2. In § 660.131, revise paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) to read as follows:

          § 660.131
          Pacific whiting fishery management measures.

          (b) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (iii) * * *
          (C) Shorebased IFQ Program. The start of the Shorebased IFQ Program primary whiting season is:
          (1) North of 40°30′ N. lat.—May 15;
          (2) South of 40°30′ N. lat.—April 15.

      [FR Doc. 2015-03079 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI51
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard as Threatened

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Reinstated proposed rule; reopening of comment period and announcement of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period for the proposed listing of the flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The reopened comment period will allow all interested parties to submit written comments on the proposal. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they have been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final determination. Additionally, we are announcing that public hearings will be held on the proposed listing determination. Because of budgetary constraints, we are only able to hold public hearings on June 19, 2002, as described below. We welcome all substantive comments and want to stress that written comments on the proposal are given equal consideration as verbal comments presented at the public hearings.

          DATES:
          The original public comment period on the proposed listing determination closed on June 9, 1997, and the second comment period on the reinstated proposed listing determination closed on April 25, 2002. The public comment period is reopened, and we will accept comments until July 29, 2002. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on the closing date. Any comments that are received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action. The public hearings will be held on June 19, 2002, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in El Centro, California.

          ADDRESSES:

            Public Hearings: The public hearings will be held at Southwest High School Performing Arts Theatre, 2001 Ocotillo Drive, El Centro, CA.

            Comments: If you wish to comment on the reinstated proposed rule or provide additional information concerning the status and distribution of the species, as well as information pertaining to threats to the species or its habitat, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of several methods:
          1. You may submit written comments and information by mail or hand delivery to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
          2. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to fthl@r1.fws.gov. Please submit comments in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please include your name and return e-mail address in your e-mail message. Please note that the e-mail address will be closed out at the termination of the public comment period. If you do not receive confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at telephone number 760/431-9440.

            Document Availability: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of the proposed rule and subsequent withdrawal, and additional information obtained since the withdrawal that will be used for this final determination are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Douglas Krofta, Branch Chief, Listing, or Sandy Vissman, Wildlife Biologist, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section; telephone 760/431-9440; facsimile 760/431-9624).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The flat-tailed horned lizard is a small, cryptically colored lizard that reaches a maximum adult body length (excluding the tail) of approximately 81 millimeters (3.2 inches). The lizard has a flattened body, short tail, and dagger-like head spines like other horned lizards. It is distinguished from other horned lizards in its range by a dark vertebral stripe, two slender elongated occipital spines, and the absence of external ear openings. The upper surface of the flat-tailed horned lizard is pale gray to light rusty brown. The underside is white and unmarked, with the exception of a prominent umbilical scar.
        The flat-tailed horned lizard is endemic (restricted) to the Sonoran Desert in southern California and Arizona and in northern Mexico. The species inhabits desert areas of southern Riverside, eastern San Diego, and Imperial counties in California; southwestern Arizona; and adjacent regions of northwestern Sonora and northeastern Baja California Norte, Mexico. Within the United States, populations of the flat-tailed horned lizard are concentrated in portions of the Coachella Valley, Ocotillo Wells, Anza Borrego Desert, West Mesa, East Mesa, and the Yuma Desert in California; and the area between Yuma and the Gila Mountains in Arizona. The flat-tailed horned lizard occurs at elevations up to 520 meters (m) (1,700 feet (ft)) above sea level, but most populations are below 250 m (820 ft) elevation.
        According to Hodges (1997), approximately 51.2 percent of the historic range of the flat-tailed horned lizard habitat within the United States remains. This remaining habitat includes an estimated 503,500 hectares (ha) (1,244,000 acres (ac)) of habitat in the United States, of which approximately 56,800 ha (140,300 ac) occur in Arizona and 446,670 ha (1,103,800 ac) occur in California. Within this range, the lizard typically occupies sparsely vegetated, sandy desert flatlands with low plant species diversity, but it is also found in areas with small pebbles or desert pavement, mud hills, dunes, alkali flats, and low, rocky mountains.
        Based on information obtained since the withdrawal of the proposed listing rule and the information documented in the proposed rule itself, threats to the flat-tailed horned lizard may include one or more of the following: commercial and residential development, agricultural development, off-highway vehicle activity, energy developments, military activities, introduction of nonnative plants, pesticide use, and border patrol activities along the United States-Mexico border.
        In 1982, we first identified the flat-tailed horned lizard as a category 2 candidate species for listing under the Act (47 FR 58454). Service regulations defined category 2 candidate species as “taxa for which information in the possession of the Service indicated that proposing to list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threats were not currently available to support proposed rules.” In 1989, we elevated the species to category 1 status (54 FR 554). Category 1 included species “for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule.” Subsequently, on November 29, 1993, we published a proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species pursuant to the Act (58 FR 62624).
        On May 16, 1997, in response to a lawsuit filed by the Defenders of Wildlife to compel us to make a final listing determination on the flat-tailed horned lizard, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ordered us to issue a final listing decision within 60 days. A month after the District Court's order, several State and Federal agencies signed a Conservation Agreement (CA) implementing a recently completed range-wide management strategy to protect the flat-tailed horned lizard. Pursuant to the CA, cooperating parties agreed to take voluntary steps aimed at “reducing threats to the species, stabilizing the species’ populations, and maintaining its ecosystem.”
        On July 15, 1997, we issued a final decision to withdraw the proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species (62 FR 37852). The withdrawal was based on three factors: (1) population trend data did not conclusively demonstrate significant population declines; (2) some of the threats to the flat-tailed horned lizard habitat had grown less serious since the proposed rule was issued; and (3) the belief that the recently approved “conservation agreement w[ould] ensure further reductions in threats.”
        Six months following our withdrawal of the proposed listing rule, the Defenders of Wildlife filed a lawsuit challenging our decision. On June 16, 1999, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in our favor upholding our decision not to list the flat-tailed horned lizard. However, on July 31, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling and directed the District Court to remand the matter back to us for further consideration in accordance with the legal standards outlined in its opinion. On October 24, 2001, the District Court ordered us to reinstate the previously effective proposed listing rule within 60 calendar days and to make a final listing decision within 12 months of reinstating the proposed listing. On December 26, 2001, we published a notice announcing the reinstatement of the 1993 proposed listing of the flat-tailed horned lizard as threatened and the opening of a 120-day public comment period on the reinstated proposed rule (66 FR 66384).

        This notice announces the reopening of the public comment period on this proposed rulemaking. The public comment period is being opened for 60 days to hold public hearings on the proposed listing of the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species, accept public comment on the reinstated proposed rule, and collect updated information concerning its ecology and distribution, threats, conservation/management actions, and any additional available information to assist us in making a final listing determination based on the best scientific and commercial data available.
        We are specifically seeking information about the flat-tailed horned lizard and its habitat concerning: (1) threats to the species as a whole or to local populations and its habitat, (2) the size, number, and/or distribution of known populations, (3) sufficiency of current conservation/management and regulatory mechanisms for the flat-tailed horned lizard and its habitat, and (4) the conservation value of different populations across the range of the species.
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is Douglas Krofta, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

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

          Dated: May 3, 2002.
          Thomas O. Melius,
          Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-13533 Filed 5-29-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Part 552
        [GSAR Case 2012-G503; Docket 2012-0018; Sequence 1]
        RIN 3090-AJ31
        General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) and Sales Reporting

          AGENCY:
          Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise the GSAR clause and to address the use of the Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) under the Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) Program. The proposed revisions will reflect the current use of the IFF to include the ability to offset losses in other Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) programs and fund initiatives that benefit other FAS programs. This change will benefit GSA and the MAS Program by facilitating transparency and open government, and more accurately define the current MAS Program operations while simultaneously complying with the recommendations of the GSA Office of Inspector General (OIG). This proposed rule is part of the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) rewrite Project, in which all parts of the regulation are being reviewed and updated to include new statutes, legislation, policies, and to delete outdated information and obsolete forms.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before February 26, 2013 to be considered in the formulation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2012-G503 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments by searching for “GSAR Case 2012-G503”. Follow the instructions provided to “Submit a Comment”. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “GSAR Case 2012-G503” on your attached document.
          • Fax: 202-501-4067.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., 7th Floor, ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC 20417.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite GSAR Case 2012-G503 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Dana Munson, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202-357-9652 or email Dana.Munson@gsa.gov, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2012-G503.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        A. Background
        GSA is proposing to amend the GSAR to update the text addressing GSAR Part 552, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses at 552.238-74 Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting.
        Currently, the language contained in the IFF Clause, GSAR 552.238-74, under subsection (b)(2) states “* * * The IFF reimburses the Federal Supply Service for the costs of operating the Federal Supply Schedules Program and recoups its operating costs from ordering activities.” The GSA OIG's AUDIT OF THE MULTIPLE AWARD SCHEDULE PROGRAM INDUSTRIAL FUNDING FEE (REPORT NUMBER A090256/Q/A/P12003), dated February 3, 2012 (the “OIG Report”), recommended that GSA further improve transparency in the MAS Program by informing MAS customers that the IFF may be used to fund other programs or offset losses in other FAS programs. As a result of the OIG recommendation, GSA proposes to amend the current language at GSAR/GSAM clause 552.238-74 Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) and Sales Reporting to include the expanded role of net revenue generated by IFF payments.
        In addition, the OIG Report cited the GSA Modernization Act (Pub. L. 109-313, 120 Stat. 1734 (2006), codified in relevant part at 40 U.S.C. 321) as the authority under which net operating revenue generated by the IFF can be used for more than simple recoupment of costs to run the MAS Program.
        The GSA Modernization Act combined the General Supply Fund and the Information Technology Fund which were formerly separate, into one fund, the Acquisition Services Fund.
        The GSA Modernization Act, among other things, grants the GSA Administrator latitude in determining how to use net operating revenue from the MAS Program, including offsetting losses in other FAS programs or funding initiatives benefitting other FAS programs. Essentially, use of MAS program revenue may extend beyond mere MAS Program cost recovery. In the past, this information was not formally communicated to MAS Program customers. Additionally, GSA is updating all references to “Federal Supply Service” or “FSS” in the IFF clause to reflect the current name: “Federal Acquisition Services” or “FAS”, as appropriate.
        This proposed rule complies with the recommendations of the GSA OIG, and facilitates transparency and open government, as well as more accurately reflects the current MAS Program relative to use of the IFF. This action is separate and apart from GSA's recent announcement that it will review and develop recommendations on the overall fee structure for the MAS Program in an effort to create savings for GSA customers.
        B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The General Services Administration does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the proposed rule clarifies GSA's use of the IFF under the MAS Program, consistent with the GSA Modernization Act and the recommendation of the GSA OIG. This rule does not require implementation of any changes on the part of businesses, large or small doing business with GSA. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities. GSA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected GSAR Part in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (GSAR Case 2012-G503), in correspondence.
        D. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) applies because the proposed rule contains information collection requirements relating to the collection of the Industrial Funding Fee. This information collection lapsed on March 9, 2010 and accordingly, the Regulatory secretariat will submit a request for approval of a reinstatement of the information collection requirement concerning 3090-0121, Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting, to the Office of Management and Budget. The proposed rule described herein, of amending the IFF clause for clarification, does not affect the estimate of information collection burden.
        Annual Reporting Burden
        Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .0833 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.
        The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:

          Respondents: 19,000.

          Responses per Respondent: 4.

          Total Responses: 76,000.

          Hours per Response: .0833.

          Total Burden Hours: 6,330.80.
        Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden
        Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than February 26, 2013 TO: GSAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1275 First Street  NE., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20417.
        Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the GSAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of the collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
        A requester may obtain a copy of the supporting statement from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20417. Please cite OMB Control Number 3090-0121, Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting, in correspondence.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 552
          Government procurement.

          Dated: December 20, 2012.
          Joseph A. Neurauter,
          Senior Procurement Executive & Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration.

        Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR part 552 as set forth below:

          PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
          1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 552 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            40 U.S.C. 121(c).

          2. Amend section 552.238-74 by—
          a. Revising the date of the clause;
          b. Removing from paragraph (a)(2) “FSS” and adding “FAS” in its place;
          c. Removing from paragraph (a)(4) “Federal Supply Service (FSS)” and adding “Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)” in its place;
          d. Removing from paragraphs (b), and (b)(1) “FSS” and adding “FAS” in their places, respectively;
          e. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
          f. Removing from paragraph (c) “FSS” and adding “FAS” in its place..
          The revised text reads as follows:

            § 552.238-74
            Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting.

            Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting (Date)

              (b) * * *

              (2) The IFF represents a percentage of the total quarterly sales reported. This percentage is set at the discretion of GSA's FAS. GSA's FAS has the unilateral right to change the percentage at any time, but not more than once per year. FAS will provide reasonable notice prior to the effective date of the change. The IFF reimburses FAS for the costs of operating the Federal Supply Schedules Program. FAS recoups its operating costs from ordering activities as set forth in 40 U.S.C. 321: Acquisition Services Fund. Net operating results generated by the IFF are also applied to offset losses or fund initiatives benefitting other FAS programs, in accordance with 40 U.S.C. 321. Offerors must include the IFF in their prices. The fee is included in the award price(s) and reflected in the total amount charged to ordering activities. FAS will post notice of the current IFF at https://72a.gsa.gov/or successor Web site as appropriate.

      [FR Doc. 2012-31057 Filed 12-27-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-61-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Chapter III
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0194]
        Transportation Intermediaries Association Petition for Rulemaking Concerning Property Broker Transaction Records and Regulatory Guidance Concerning Dispatch Services

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Petition for rulemaking; request for public comments.

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA requests public comments on the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) petition for rulemaking concerning the rights of parties to a brokered transaction to review the records of the transaction and its request that the Agency issue regulatory guidance concerning dispatch services. TIA believes transparency in broker transactions is provided through other means in today's market place and that the regulatory guidance would ensure that interested parties can distinguish between a dispatch service and an authorized broker.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted by January 25, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2020-0194 using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: Docket Operations, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Docket Operations.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.

          To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. La Tonya Mimms, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202) 366-4001, or by email at MCPSD@dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, (202) 366-9826.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Submitting Comments

        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this document (Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0194), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FMCSA-2020-0194, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
        If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
        FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
        Confidential Business Information
        Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket for this document. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Any comments FMCSA receives which are not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this document.
        B. Viewing Comments and Documents

        To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2020-0194 in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Docket Operations.
        C. Privacy Act

        In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy.

        I. Background
        A. Brokers' Records of Transactions; History of Current Requirements
        Section 371.3(c) of title 49 of the CFR states that “[e]ach party to a brokered transaction has the right to review the record of the transaction required to be kept by these rules.” The current requirements under 49 CFR 371.3(c) were adopted by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) on October 17, 1980 (45 FR 68941), at 49 CFR 1045.3(c). Prior to 1980, the broker records requirements under 49 CFR 1045.3 did not include a specific provision concerning the rights of parties to a brokered transaction to review the record of the transaction. In its May 12, 1980 (45 FR 31140) notice of proposed rulemaking concerning multiple broker regulations, the ICC explained that the proposed change to section 1045(c) would allow the agency to “. . . eliminate more complex rules found at sections 1045.5, 1045.6, and 1045.10.” Those requirements related to charges for brokerage services, charges for non-brokerage services, and duties and obligations of brokers, respectively.
        With the termination of the ICC in 1995, the regulatory oversight of brokers was transferred to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the requirements under 49 CFR 1045.3 were redesignated, without change, under 49 CFR 371.3 (61 FR 54707; October 21, 1996). Subsequently, with the establishment of FMCSA in 2000, all motor carrier oversight responsibilities and regulations were transferred from FHWA to FMCSA.
        B. Petition for Rulemaking

        TIA requested that FMCSA rescind 49 CFR 371.3(c) concerning the rights of parties to a brokered transaction to review the records of the transaction. TIA wrote, “The Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) commentary in the Federal Register notice published on May 12, 1980 offers an interesting perspective on the purpose of the broker transaction (emphasis added):

          The amount of the broker's fee is not regulated by the Commission. This means that a broker must engage in a bargaining process with its principals. The amount of commission that a principal agrees to pay will vary according to the benefits it perceives it will gain from the transaction. No party is obligated to deal with a broker or pays its commissions. A party may either choose to do without the brokers' services or to look for another broker who will offer the service at a lower price. In this regard, we note that the property broker industry is a highly competitive one. Our goal in regulating transactions between brokers, carriers, and shippers is to remove all unnecessary restrictions which might impede the free operation of the marketplace.”

        TIA argues that 49 CFR 371.3(c) is in direct conflict with the original intent of the ICC to ensure that “all unnecessary restrictions which might impede the free operation of the marketplace” are removed. TIA stated, “In today's marketplace brokers are not commissioned sales agents of motor carriers. As noted above brokers pay motor carriers regardless of the rate that the shipper pays the broker. The need to verify commissions no longer exists.”
        TIA asserts that motor carrier transportation on the spot market is one of the most transparent market places in the world. Load boards, the internet, and rate quotes in person-to-person communications within the industry provide the rate transparency that was intended by 49 CFR 371.3 when commissions paid by carriers to brokers were common. Motor carriers have sufficient access to current market rates without inspecting brokers' shipment records to find out what the brokers' gross margins are on a load-by-load basis.
        C. TIA Request for Regulatory Guidance Concerning Dispatch Services

        TIA believes that some “dispatch services” are essentially unlicensed brokers that handle financial transactions for freight transportation services but do not meet the statutory licensing or financial security requirements applicable to brokers registered with FMCSA. TIA describes dispatch services as entities that provide a service on behalf of a motor carrier, where they assist on booking loads and other services.
        TIA believes the Agency should publish regulatory guidance explaining that the legal duties of a dispatch service allow them to be an agent for one motor carrier, and that anything further requires a brokerage license and compliance with the financial responsibility requirements applicable to brokers. TIA believes this is especially necessary when the dispatch service is handling payment from the shipper and then making payment to the motor carrier. According to TIA, this guidance would ultimately enable private legal action to be taken for violations, which would allow the public and the Agency both to enforce the provisions of this regulation. A copy of TIA's letter petitioning the Agency to initiate rulemaking and to issue regulatory guidance is included in the docket for this document.
        D. Request for Public Comments

        Petitions for rulemaking are governed by DOT regulations codified at 49 CFR 5.13 and FMCSA regulations at 49 CFR 389.31 and 389.33. While these regulations do not require FMCSA to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comments, FMCSA believes that taking this action would provide a means of engaging stakeholders in the process for assessing the need for a rulemaking. FMCSA therefore requests public comment on TIA's petition for rulemaking to rescind 49 CFR 371.3 and the association's request that the Agency issue regulatory guidance concerning “dispatch services.” Commenters are encouraged to provide responses to the following questions:
        1. To what extent would brokers' disclosure of the records of individual transactions to individual motor carriers under 49 CFR 371.3(c) place brokers and their shipper clients at risk of having proprietary information concerning freight descriptions, transportation rates and routes disclosed to their competitors?
        2. For authorized brokers, how often do motor carriers exercise their right under 49 CFR 371.3(c) to review the record of the transaction, and are there motor carriers who make requests on such a frequent basis that they could, if working with other motor carriers, learn certain proprietary information concerning shippers' rates and routes?
        3. In the absence of 49 CFR 371.3(c), what information concerning brokered transactions would authorized brokers share with the shippers and for-hire carriers?
        4. To what extent do shippers engage in discussions with brokers about the rates the authorized motor carriers will be paid?
        5. How often do shippers enter into negotiations about interstate transportation services with an entity that is neither an interstate motor carrier registered with FMCSA nor a broker registered with FMCSA?
        6. Would the issuance of regulatory guidance concerning “dispatch services” provide an effective deterrent to unauthorized brokerage services, or would additional actions by FMCSA be required to address the challenges described by TIA?
        7. Is there sufficient clarity in the current definitions of “broker,” “bona fide agents,” and “brokerage or brokerage service” under 49 CFR 371.2 to enable interested parties to identify dispatch services that are actually carrying out the functions of a registered broker and to file a complaint with FMCSA for subsequent investigation?

          Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
          James W. Deck,
          Deputy Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2020-25307 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
        36 CFR Part 1195
        [Docket No. 2007-02]
        RIN 3014-AA22
        Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas

          AGENCY:
          Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

          ACTION:
          Notice of hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) will hold a hearing on proposed accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas designed, constructed, or altered by Federal agencies subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. The guidelines cover trails, outdoor recreation access routes, beach access routes, and picnic and camping facilities.

          DATES:
          The hearing will be on September 26, 2007 from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The hearing will be held at the Indiana Convention Center, Room 102, 100 South Capitol Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46225.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Bill Botten, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number (202) 272-0014 (Voice); (202) 272-0082 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers. E-mail address: botten@access-board.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On June 20, 2007, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) published proposed accessibility guidelines in the Federal Register for outdoor developed areas designed, constructed, or altered by Federal agencies subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. 72 FR 34074 (June 20, 2007). The Architectural Barriers Act applies to federally financed facilities. The guidelines cover trails, outdoor recreation access routes, beach access routes, and picnic and camping facilities.

        The guidelines are available for public comment until October 18, 2007. The Board is also holding hearings on the proposed guidelines. One hearing was held in Westminster, CO on July 24 (comments from the hearing can be viewed at http://www.access-board.gov/outdoor/nprm/comments/index.htm). Another hearing will take place during the Access Board's regularly scheduled Board meeting on September 6, 2007 from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. at the Madison Hotel, 1177 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. 72 FR 34074 (June 20, 2007).
        The final hearing will take place on September 26, 2007 from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. at the Indiana Convention Center, Room 102, 100 South Capitol Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46225 in conjunction with the National Recreation and Park Association's annual Congress and Exposition. The hearing location is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sign language interpreters and real-time captioning will be provided. For the comfort of other participants, persons attending the hearing are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances.

          Tricia Mason,
          Chair, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

      [FR Doc. E7-16623 Filed 8-22-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 8150-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Part 25
        [FAR Case 2020-009; Docket No. FAR-2020-0009; Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 9000-AO07
        Federal Acquisition Regulation: List of Domestically Nonavailable Articles

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:

          DoD, GSA, and NASA are considering amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to update the list of domestically nonavailable articles under the Buy American statute. DoD, GSA, and NASA are seeking information that will assist in identifying domestic capabilities and for evaluating whether some articles on the list of domestically nonavailable articles are now mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit comments at the address shown below on or before July 13, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2020-009 by to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2020-009”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2020-009.” Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2020-009” on your attached document. If your comment cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the points of contact in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “FAR case 2020-009” in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, at 202-969-7207 or zenaida.delgado@gsa.gov for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2020-009.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        A. The Buy American statute (41 U.S.C. chapter 83) generally requires that only domestically mined, produced, or manufactured articles be procured for public use in the United States. The Buy American statute provides an exception for articles not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality. FAR 25.103(b)(1) provides a determination that articles listed at FAR 25.104(a) meet the conditions of this exception. This determination does not necessarily mean that there is no domestic source for the listed items, but that domestic sources can only meet 50 percent or less of total U.S. Government and nongovernment demand. See FAR 25.103(b)(1)(i).

        The established list of articles identified in FAR 25.104(a) is a comprehensive and wide-ranging mix of natural resources, compounds, materials, and other items of supply. Although some articles on the list have no known domestic production sources (e.g., quartz crystals or vanilla beans), many of the articles are known to have some domestic production sources, but those sources have been determined in the past to be inadequate to meet U.S. demand. Examples of such articles range from goat and kidskins (negligible domestic production), to crude iodine (5 percent of U.S. Government and nongovernment demand), to bismuth (not in excess of 50 percent of U.S. Government and nongovernment demand).

        The list is reviewed every five years, as required by FAR 25.104(b). DoD, GSA, and NASA last published in the Federal Register a request for public comment on the list on March 24, 2015 (80 FR 15544).
        DoD, GSA, and NASA are seeking information to determine whether some articles should be removed from the list because they are now mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality. Specific information with regard to domestic production capacity in relation to U.S. Government and nongovernment demand and the quality of domestically produced items would be most helpful in determining whether articles should remain on or be removed from the list. A sources-sought notice will be published in the Governmentwide point of entry (GPE) in an effort to increase the awareness of this request and to receive greater responses from interested parties on the nonavailable articles listing.
        B. The current domestically nonavailable listing at FAR 25.104 is as follows:

          Acetylene, black.
          Agar, bulk.
          Anise.
          Antimony, as metal or oxide.
          Asbestos, amosite, chrysotile, and crocidolite.
          Bamboo shoots.
          Bananas.
          Bauxite.
          Beef, corned, canned.
          Beef extract.
          Bephenium hydroxynaphthoate.
          Bismuth.
          Books, trade, text, technical, or scientific; newspapers; pamphlets; magazines; periodicals; printed briefs and films; not printed in the United States and for which domestic editions are not available.
          Brazil nuts, unroasted.
          Cadmium, ores and flue dust.
          Calcium cyanamide.
          Capers.
          Cashew nuts.
          Castor beans and castor oil.
          Chalk, English.
          Chestnuts.
          Chicle.
          Chrome ore or chromite.
          Cinchona bark.
          Cobalt, in cathodes, rondelles, or other primary ore and metal forms.
          Cocoa beans.
          Coconut and coconut meat, unsweetened, in shredded, desiccated, or similarly prepared form.
          Coffee, raw or green bean.
          Colchicine alkaloid, raw.
          Copra.
          Cork, wood or bark and waste.
          Cover glass, microscope slide.
          Crane rail (85-pound per foot).
          Cryolite, natural.
          Dammar gum.
          Diamonds, industrial, stones and abrasives.
          Emetine, bulk.
          Ergot, crude.
          Erythrityl tetranitrate.
          Fair linen, altar.
          Fibers of the following types: abaca, abace, agave, coir, flax, jute, jute burlaps, palmyra, and sisal.
          Goat hair canvas.
          Goat and kidskins.
          Grapefruit sections, canned.
          Graphite, natural, crystalline, crucible grade.
          Hand file sets (Swiss pattern).
          Handsewing needles.
          Hemp yarn.
          Hog bristles for brushes.
          Hyoscine, bulk.
          Ipecac, root.
          Iodine, crude.
          Kauri gum.
          Lac.
          Leather, sheepskin, hair type.
          Lavender oil.
          Manganese.
          Menthol, natural bulk.
          Mica.
          Microprocessor chips (brought onto a Government construction site as separate units for incorporation into building systems during construction or repair and alteration of real property).
          Modacrylic fiber.
          Nickel, primary, in ingots, pigs, shots, cathodes, or similar forms; nickel oxide and nickel salts.
          Nitroguanidine (also known as picrite).
          Nux vomica, crude.
          Oiticica oil.
          Olive oil.
          Olives (green), pitted or unpitted, or stuffed, in bulk.
          Opium, crude.

          Oranges, mandarin, canned.
          Petroleum, crude oil, unfinished oils, and finished products.
          Pineapple, canned.
          Pine needle oil.
          Platinum and related group metals, refined, as sponge, powder, ingots, or cast bars.
          Pyrethrum flowers.
          Quartz crystals.
          Quebracho.
          Quinidine.
          Quinine.
          Rabbit fur felt.
          Radium salts, source and special nuclear materials.
          Rosettes.
          Rubber, crude and latex.
          Rutile.
          Santonin, crude.
          Secretin.
          Shellac.
          Silk, raw and unmanufactured.
          Spare and replacement parts for equipment of foreign manufacture, and for which domestic parts are not available.
          Spices and herbs, in bulk.
          Sugars, raw.
          Swords and scabbards.
          Talc, block, steatite.
          Tantalum.
          Tapioca flour and cassava.
          Tartar, crude; tartaric acid and cream of tartar in bulk.
          Tea in bulk.
          Thread, metallic (gold).
          Thyme oil.
          Tin in bars, blocks, and pigs.
          Triprolidine hydrochloride.
          Tungsten.
          Vanilla beans.
          Venom, cobra.
          Water chestnuts.
          Wax, carnauba.
          Wire glass.
          Woods; logs, veneer, and lumber of the following species: Alaskan yellow cedar, angelique, balsa, ekki, greenheart, lignum vitae, mahogany, and teak.
          Yarn, 50 Denier rayon.
          Yeast, active dry and instant active dry.

        II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, this proposed rule was not subject to the review of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866. This proposed rule is not a major proposed rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        III. Executive Order 13771
        This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13771, because this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 25
          Government procurement.

          William F. Clark,
          Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2020-09208 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P