        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-AS65
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Aquaculture

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of Availability of the Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico (FMP); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted the FMP for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. The FMP is intended to establish a comprehensive permitting and regulatory framework to manage the development of an environmentally sound and economically sustainable aquaculture industry in the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The FMP would establish application and permit requirements, aquaculture operational requirements and restrictions, siting requirements and conditions, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements; specify allowable aquaculture species; provide for evaluation and approval/disapproval of proposed aquaculture systems (e.g., cages or net pens); establish restricted access zones around aquaculture facilities; and establish a regulatory framework for modifying certain aquaculture-related management measures consistent with the provisions of the FMP. In addition, the FMP would establish biological reference points and status determination criteria specific to aquaculture in the EEZ.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on August 3, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “0648-AS65”, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: Jess Beck, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2008-0233” in the keyword search, then check the box labeled “Select to find documents accepting comments or submissions”, then select “Send a Comment or Submission.” 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, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the FMP may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone 813-348-1630; fax 813-348-1711; e-mail: gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org; or may be downloaded from the Council's website at http://www.gulfcouncil.org/. The FMP includes a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jess Beck, telephone: 727-824-5301; fax: 727-824-5320; e-mail: Jess.Beck@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
         Demand for protein is increasing in the United States. Today imports account for over 80 percent of the U.S. seafood consumption. As demand for seafood as protein continues to increase many commercial wild-capture fisheries are being fished at or above sustainable levels and are likely unable to meet such growing demand. Aquaculture of commercially and recreationally important species has been suggested as one method to meet the current and future demands for seafood.
         Currently, there is no process for accommodating commercial scale offshore aquaculture in Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone, other than live rock aquaculture which is authorized under Amendments 2 and 3 to the Coral and Coral Reefs FMP. NOAA Fisheries Service may issue an exempted fishing permit (EFP) to conduct offshore aquaculture in federal waters; however, an EFP is of limited duration and is not intended for commercial production of fish and shellfish. The Council has submitted the FMP to NMFS for agency review under procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The purpose of this FMP is to establish a comprehensive permitting and regulatory framework to manage the development of an environmentally sound and economically sustainable aquaculture industry in the EEZ.

         The Council chose alternatives that would: establish application and permit requirements, aquaculture operational requirements and restrictions, siting requirements and conditions, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements; specify allowable aquaculture species; provide for evaluation and approval/disapproval of proposed aquaculture systems (e.g., cages or net pens); establish restricted access zones around aquaculture facilities; establish a regulatory framework for modifying certain aquaculture-related management measures consistent with the provisions of the FMP; and establish biological reference points and status determination criteria specific to aquaculture in the EEZ.
         The FMP, including the PEIS, would serve as the basis for evaluating the potential effects of issuing permits to Gulf aquaculture operations. Potential effects falling outside the scope of the actions proposed would be further analyzed through additional National Environmental Policy Act analyses conducted by the Council and NMFS.

        The Council has submitted the FMP for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. NMFS' decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the FMP will be based, in part, on consideration of comments, recommendations, and information received during the comment period on this notice of availability. After consideration of these factors, and consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, NMFS will publish a notice of agency action in the Federal Register announcing the Agency's decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the FMP, and the associated rationale.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        Public comments received by 5 p.m. eastern time, on August 3, 2009, will be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision regarding the FMP.

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

          Dated: May 29, 2009.
          Kristen C. Koch,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-13090 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 10-1806; MB Docket No. 10-189; RM-11611]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Willow Creek, CA

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document sets forth a proposal to amend the FM Table of Allotments. The Commission requests comment on a petition filed by Miriam Media, Inc., proposing the allotment of FM Channel 258A at Willow Creek, California. Petitioner, the auction winner and permittee of Channel 253A, Willow Creek, has submitted an application to specify operation of the station on Channel 254C1 at Loleta, California. Petitioner proposes the allotment of Channel 258A at Willow Creek in order to maintain a first local service at that community. Petitioner concedes that the signal contour of proposed Channel 258A at Willow Creek would not provide 70 dBu city-grade coverage to the entire Census Designated Place of Willow Creek, but argues that it has demonstrated substantial compliance with section 73.315(a) of the Commission's rules, and that the proposed allotment would serve the public interest. Channel 258A can be allotted at Willow Creek in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at 40-57-29 North Latitude and 123-42-23 West Longitude. See
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
            infra.

          DATES:
          The deadline for filing comments is November 18, 2010. Reply comments must be filed on or before December 3, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Evan Carb, Esq., Law Offices of Evan D. Carb, PLLC, 1140 Nineteenth Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202) 418-7072.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 10-189, adopted September 24, 2010, and released September 27, 2010. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, or via the company's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4).

        The Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California, is amended by adding Channel 258A at Willow Creek.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2010-26061 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 531, 533 and 536
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0135]
        Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Credits

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Grant of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice partially grants a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Petitioners”) on June 20, 2016, to consider amending various aspects of the light vehicle Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. The Petitioners requested that NHTSA issue a direct final rule to implement the requested changes, but NHTSA believes that the issues and questions raised by the Petitioners are worthy of notice and comment. NHTSA will address the changes requested in the Petition in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

          DATES:
          December 21, 2016.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For technical issues, you may call Mr. James Tamm in the Fuel Economy Division of the Office of Rulemaking at (202) 493-0515. For legal issues, you may call Ms. Rebecca Yoon in the Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. You may send mail to these officials at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On June 20, 2016, the Petitioners submitted a Petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting that the agencies issue a direct final rule to amend various aspects of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and light-duty greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations. The Petitioners stated that these amendments are necessary to “address various inconsistencies between” NHTSA's CAFE program and EPA's GHG emissions program, and to “address additional inefficiencies” in the programs.
        Specifically, Petitioners requested that NHTSA (and EPA) 1
           modify the CAFE regulations as follows:

            1 This decision addresses only those portions of the Petition that are within NHTSA's jurisdiction and responsibility. It does not address aspects of the Petition that are exclusively under EPA's jurisdiction.

        (1) Include “off-cycle” credits in the calculation of manufacturers' fleet fuel economy levels for model years 2010 through 2016;
        (2) Include air conditioning efficiency credits in the calculation of manufacturers' fleet fuel economy levels for model years 2010 through 2016;
        (3) Apply the “fuel savings adjustment factor” for all uses of CAFE credits;
        (4) Apply the same estimate of Vehicle Miles Traveled for model years 2011 through 2016 that that the EPA GHG program uses;
        (5) Change the definition of “credit transfer” in 49 CFR part 536 to state that the statutory cap on credit transfers applies at time of transfer rather than at time of use;
        (6) Amend regulations to clarify that manufacturers may manage and apply their credits regardless of their origin;
        (7) Amend 49 CFR 531(d) so that minimum domestic passenger car standards represent 92 percent of the overall passenger car CAFE standard for the fleet as a whole calculated at the end of each model year, rather than 92 percent of the overall standard as calculated at the time that the standards are/were originally issued;
        (8) Adjust the “multiplier” for full electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and compressed natural gas vehicles; and
        (9) “Improve” the off-cycle credit approval process and reaffirm several provisions.
        Some aspects of the Petition were directed to NHTSA, some to both NHTSA and EPA, and other requests were directed exclusively to EPA. The sixth item, seeking clarification that manufacturers may manage and apply their credits regardless of their origin, requests a change in an EPA regulation (40 CFR 86.1865(k)(5)) that does not appear applicable or relevant to the CAFE program. Calculation procedures for CAFE compliance are located at 40 CFR 600.510-12. Credits for CAFE over-compliance are determined based on the difference between a manufacturer's calculated “achieved” CAFE value and the manufacturer's calculated “required” CAFE value. NHTSA believes that this request was not intended to be directed at the CAFE program, but NHTSA would welcome Petitioners' clarification if this is incorrect.
        Similarly, the eighth item, which addresses the “multiplier” for alternative fuel vehicles, applies exclusively to EPA's GHG program. NHTSA does not speak for EPA in this decision, and will not address this item in the upcoming rulemaking.

        The remaining items will be addressed in conjunction with the Agency's upcoming proposal for setting future CAFE standards. NHTSA believes that these issues are best considered concurrently with that rulemaking for both procedural and substantive reasons. Procedurally, reducing the number of rulemaking actions increases administrative efficiency and improves the ability to evaluate cumulative program impacts comprehensively. Substantively, while Petitioners' requests nominally focus on credit and flexibility issues, NHTSA believes that the underlying questions of whether and how to expand compliance flexibilities is closely related to the question of what CAFE standards are maximum feasible in future model years, which NHTSA will determine in the upcoming rulemaking as required by statute. The Petitioners appear to agree with this, as the Petition suggests that if a lack of compliance flexibilities leads manufacturers to pay civil penalties for CAFE non-compliance, the CAFE standards may be beyond maximum feasible levels. While NHTSA does not agree that the fact that any manufacturer would face civil penalties alone would suggest that CAFE standards would be beyond maximum feasible, the Agency does agree that manufacturers' ability to comply with standards is a vital consideration in any CAFE rulemaking.

        Thus, NHTSA finds that considering these questions concurrently, as part of the same action, will best allow the Agency to maintain a well-structured program that maximizes fuel economy gains in the most cost-effective way possible. NHTSA further concludes that a direct final rule would not be an appropriate mechanism for responding to Petitioners' requests, because: (i) The opportunity for notice and public comment on the Agency's response is important and valuable, particularly given (ii) the linkage between compliance flexibilities and the maximum feasible levels of CAFE standards. Moreover, NHTSA regulations do not allow for a direct final rule to be issued as such if the rule may be controversial or is likely to result in adverse comment. NHTSA is aware that various stakeholders have strong views for and against the expansion of compliance flexibilities in the CAFE program, and the Agency would expect those stakeholders to comment to a direct final rule accordingly, which would require the Agency per its own regulations to initiate notice and comment. See 49 CFR 553.14. Thus, NHTSA denies the petition to the extent that it seeks a direct final rule.
        NHTSA's fuel economy standards are final through 2021 and the upcoming rulemaking is required in order to set standards for 2022 and subsequent years. However, in streamlining consideration of the Petitioners' inquiry with the required NPRM, NHTSA will fully evaluate the items relevant to the CAFE program and standards, including their impacts on the program if applied prior to 2022. If in considering the Petitioner's inquiry, NHTSA finds it appropriate to initiate a separate rulemaking, NHTSA may do so. NHTSA is updating its analysis for the NPRM and welcomes input from all stakeholders, including in advance of developing its notice of proposed rulemaking. NHTSA encourages stakeholders to submit comments and to meet with the Agency to discuss their comments, concerns, and suggestions. NHTSA and EPA remain committed to working together to harmonize the CAFE and GHG program provisions to the extent possible under the agencies' statutes.
        Considering all of the information before the Agency, including but not limited to the information referenced in the petition, NHTSA grants the petition in part and denies it in part. The Agency expects to initiate a rulemaking proceeding in the coming months that will address those of the Petitioners' requests that are within the Agency's jurisdiction and power to address. The granting of the petition does not mean that the Agency will issue a final rule. The determination of whether to issue a rule will be made after study of the requested actions and the various alternatives in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 32901, 32902, and 32903; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

          Issued on December 21, 2016, in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.5, and 501.7.
          Raymond R. Posten,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2016-31140 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1998-0007; FRL-9499-5]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Notice of Intent for Deletion of the State Marine of Port Arthur Superfund Site

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the State Marine of Port Arthur (SMPA) Superfund Site located in Port Arthur, Texas, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, have determined that all appropriate response actions at these identified parcels under CERCLA, other than operations, maintenance, and Five-Year Reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by January 5, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1998-0007, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow internet on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: Rafael Casanova, casanova.rafael@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (214) 665-6660.
          • Mail: Rafael A. Casanova; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF-RA); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
          • Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; Contact: Rafael A. Casanova (214) 665-7437. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1998-0007. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

          1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; Hours of operation: Monday thru Friday, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Contact: Rafael A. Casanova (214) 665-7437.

          2. Port Arthur Public Library; 4615 9th Avenue; Port Arthur, Texas 77642-5799; Hours of operation: Monday thru Thursday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Sunday, 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rafael A. Casanova, Remedial Project Manager; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF-RA); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; telephone number: (214) 665-7437; email: casanova.rafael@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion for SMPA Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent for Deletion because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. We have explained our reason for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent for Deletion. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent for Deletion. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent for Deletion. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

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

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, 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: November 14, 2011.
          Al Armendariz,
          Regional Administrator, Region 6.

      [FR Doc. 2011-31258 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P